There seems to be no indication its strange because they are rare. What makes it seem strange to us, no matter how many times we read about it, is the fact it is God doing it. BTW, it is strange to me whether it happended as a result of any one of the five ways I mentioned above.


True. But I for one do not perceive anything God has done or permitted to happen as torture or force or violence - this includes things like the flood, the fires of sodom, the plagues of Egypt, etc.


We know how some of it will play out ( the GC is very graphic), but whether it will happen because God causes it or because He permits evil angels to cause it or whatever, that's we may not be able to nail down with absolute certainty.


Amen! Ellen White wrote:

Oh, let us contemplate the amazing sacrifice that has been made for us! Let us try to appreciate the labor and energy that Heaven is expending to reclaim the lost, and bring them back to the Father's house. Motives stronger, and agencies more powerful, could never be brought into operation; the exceeding rewards for right-doing, the enjoyment of heaven, the society of the angels, the communion and love of God and His Son, the elevation and extension of all our powers throughout eternal ages--are these not mighty incentives and encouragements to urge us to give the heart's loving service to our Creator and Redeemer? {SC 21.3}

And, on the other hand, the judgments of God pronounced against sin, the inevitable retribution, the degradation of our character, and the final destruction, are presented in God's word to warn us against the service of Satan. {SC 21.4}

I guess you mean "without denying the truth as I see it"? I'm sure you can't, which is sort of the point of the question. What if the truth is actually different than what you're perceiving?



Ok, thank you for your response.



If the truth were along the lines of what A. Graham Maxwell or Ty Gibson suggests, I could see that as a possibility. If the truth were that God is like the what is described in GC 535, the only difference being one of duration, I couldn't accept that.

MM, I didn't do this. It would be helpful if you would refrain from claiming I've done something I haven't done. Not only did I not characterize Arnold's view in the terms you are suggesting, I didn't characterize it at all. I didn't say anything at all about it.

Arnold made the following point:



The question I asked assumes precisely this same principle applies for those who did what they did during the inquisition to motivate their associates to change their minds, for a purpose they thought would be to their eternal benefit. What if they were right? Is it OK to do anything if eternal benefit would result? This is a perfectly reasonable question. Does the end justify the means?

I don't see how you could expect me to know the answer to a question like this. How would I know what God is permitting or not? I can say what He did permit, since it happened, but how could I say what He didn't permit? What would be my basis for so doing?



I'm sorry I deleted a post without leaving a context for you. I try not to do this, but sometimes is happens.

This has often happened in the reverse direction. When it has, what I've generally done is gone back and gotten the rest of the context, and quoted it. How do you want to handle this? I don't think it's fair to expect that I'll go back and get the context when you leave it out, and when I leave it out both. Do you want the "offending" party to go back and get it? Or the "innocent" party?

Here's the context:





I quoted what I said, what you said, what I said before that, and what you said before that! I can't quote the whole thread. I have to stop somewhere.

The first quote above provides the necessary context. It was the question in the first quote that didn't make sense to me. You asked if the "forces of nature" were "free to do as they please." It doesn't make sense to speak of the "forces of nature" "doing what they please," does it?



I'm saying that nature is not self-acting, and that it requires the management and supervision of God, and that if God withdraws from that function, that nature will not function properly. The result of that is very likely to be bad.



So you're going down the road in your car, and you close you eyes and turn the driving wheel randomly. Is it possible that something bad doesn't happen? It's possible, but not likely.



Of course. This is what we've been talking about the whole time. He can't totally withdraw, or the devastation would terminate all life.



I'm sorry, I can't remember it well enough to find it. But it's quite a well known statement. It talks about how Satan sometimes bless those who follow him with riches. You're not familiar with this idea? If this weren't true, then anytime anyone received blessings (such as riches or health) we would know such a one was blessed of God. This was the error which Job addressed.

Here's a statement dealing with a related idea:





You said you got the impression I believe evil angels always cause the death and destruction God is willing to allow them to cause. Since I had just said the reverse, I pointed out that it was odd that you would get such an impression. Now your asking me to cite Bible or SOP passages to affirm the view that I said was odd that you would think I held since I had said the reverse? This is very confusing to me. I think we'd better start from scratch on this one. What is it you're wanting?



I don't understand why or how you would expect me to do that. For example, you wrote, "I think it is obvious that God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable." How would I interpret this to agree with my view?



Ok, let's skip the first one, to which I'll concede your point, if you wish to affirm that God is not vengeful (do you?) and go through all the others one by one:

1.Blaming Satan for the existence of sin and death assumes Satan, and not God, is in control of sin and death.

2.Throughout eternity we will praise God for punishing sinners and destroying them in the lake of fire.

3.I think it is obvious that God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.

4.God is the author of death.

5.But the fact is, He has killed (i.e., destroyed) hundreds and thousands and millions of people since the Flood, and He will kill millions and billions more in the lake of fire.

The only one of these I can see as possibly not presenting a complete thought is #4, but it seems to me that #3 explains it adequately. Are there any of these statements which you don't believe to be true?

I'm not trying to misrepresent any of your views. It doesn't appear to me that any of the above are taken out of context, but if you affirm that you don't not believe any of the above, then I'll add whatever caveat you wish that I include to them any time I mention the quote in the future, and I'll apologize for having misrepresented your thought in that point or points.



That's not true, MM. We had long discussions about this.



Just look for "hunter" in the Search facility, and you should be able to find the thread. I've just said I think this is the most difficult of the four things I mentioned. I think discussing the atonement and the judgment would be more fruitful.

Here's a statement from the SOP:



This points out that no truth can be understood apart from the cross. So if we get that wrong, how can we expect to get the things upon which this depends right?

I suppose #2 could lead to thoughts similar to what drove the Inquisition. However, there are prerogatives available to the divine that are forbidden for mere creatures.

But consider these interesting tidbits from Wiki:
The first paragraph tells us that the Inquisition was not meant to be eternally beneficial to its victims. Rather, it was to scare everyone else away from following the same course. There are inspired passages that address this concept.

The last sentence is interesting in reference to the paradigm you propose. Here we have Sixtus IV approving, or can we say allowing, Ferdinand II and Isabella I to do what they wanted. Furthermore, I am sure that Ferdinand and Isabella, and even Torquemada, did not go down to the dirty dungeons themselves but permitted others to do the actual work of causing pain. Are they any less guilty of the torture you speak of? In your paradigm, isn't God in the place of Sixtus or Ferdinand or Torquemada, letting others do the dirty work?

do you truly "understand" and believe what you just proposed, my brother? or do you truly understand tom to be saying this?!?

in judges, and afterwards, not counting all other situations, we are told that Gods people left Him over and over to where He finally stopped protecting them and allowed them to suffer the consequences.

He is no more responsible for what happened to the israelites than if He had "made" the other nations attack them, which is how the bible seems to state it in many places, but also shows what did happen in other places.

God is no more responsible for the serpents attacking the israelites, than He is for a smoker dying from complications caused by smoking, or a drunk driver killing himself and/or maiming/killing others in a car accident.

He didnt "make it happen". we could blame Him for not working a miracle to prevent it, as He did with the serpents, not to mention the countless times before and since that He has worked miracles to protect us from also countless unknown dangers but then i think we could justly be accused for attempting to use Him as some kind of magic genie.

Arnold, I don't see that you answered my question, or attempted to. I'm sure there were those who in attempting to "motivate" their colleagues to confess were doing so from the motivation that I suggested. That is, they truly felt they were doing the right thing; that it was imperative, for the good of the soul of the one involved, that they confess, and that any means necessary was OK to bring this about, because the eternal benefit overrode temporal matters. What is a little physical pain when compared to eternal glory?

So, assuming they were correct (that what they were doing would have an eternal benefit) were they correct in acting as they did? Does the ends justify the means?

Regarding your question to me, I agree with what teresa said. In fact, I believe that a chief reason the Great Controversy is going on to demonstrate that God is not responsible in any way for sin (or Satan) or its (or his) results. For Him to act like Satan (e.g. to desire or effect killing/destroying) would counteract His own purposes.

I think a key point being missed is that in your analogy Ferdinand and Isabella wanted certain things to happen, and their surrogates did their will. In the case of God, the terrible things happen when creatures act *contrary* to His will. To get a good picture of what His will looks like, we need to look at Jesus Christ.

So I chose, "harsh". And you have yet to replace it. Do you find your view objectionable?


Done or permitted to happen. Do you see a difference as to whether it would be considered torture or not? But, if you, who think God directly burned Sodom, and at the same time do not think that is torture, force, or violence, what would you think were those things? Is anything thought done by God, or for Him, automatically thought of love? Is that why you would be willing to kill me if you thought God told you to? If this isn't watering the inquisition down or whitewashing it, I don't know what is.

You have repeatedly feigned offense. Now when it has been pointed out more than once that you were out of line regarding the papacy comment, that it was specifically clear what Tom was saying, I guess I would expect some sort of apology or at least acknowledgment or saying that you misunderstood what Tom wrote. It leaves us guessing as to whether you hoped no one noticed and maintain your supposed offense, or you don't understand what Tom was even talking about. Please refrain from feigning offense as any future attempts will sound rather silly in light of the papacy one.



MM, strange, nokriy, means unusual, alien, or foreign.
This would mean that God is doing something foreign -- not usual. If He had been doing this all along, it would not be unusual.



Show me an inspired passage which clearly specifically states that Tom finds it odd that Mountain Man would have that impression.

LOL!!!

Kland, when you're ready to study in a kind and loving manner, please let me know. In the meantime, I am not encouraged to address your questions and comments.

But I am helping you for God, therefore you would conclude it is in a kind and loving manner. Doesn't the ends justify the means?