i want to stress that i know you are a good and loving dad and that you are very kind.


i know that for a fact as i have been witness to it and not just once.

i think a much better example than starving ones child in order to punish them would be something like this:

there is a street somewhere where every single resident is some kind of criminal.

one house has a serial killer who goes out on a regular basis to hunt his victims.
another house has a rapist.
another a thief and one that doesnt just steal but hurts his victims also.
another house is a pedaphile, and on and on.

everything possible has been done to redeem these people but they would not respond. finally it is decided that all the violence has to be stopped.

either a firebomb is shot at that street that burns it utterly to the ground leaving nothing....

or there was an undetected gas leak that God ceased restraining the natural consequences of and it exploded, also leaving nothing

that anyone could gain from their deaths.

now that, for me, would be a likely example of sodom and gomorrah.

I don't. Why do you think that I equate the two? I didn't say that.

You are assuming again. Please, do to others as you would have them do to you.


Nobody. But I seem to recall somebody saying, or at least implying, that punishment is not necessary.

Here are some snippets from my quotes:


Punishment is not necessarily bad. Whipping and the rod might be necessary at times. Especially note the 2nd quote where we find that we should avoid the rod when possible, but it might still prove to be necessary.

I have come across some people who teach that the rod is never necessary. They do not have the benefit of the SOP.

Dear sir, I wish to take this opportunity, if it is pleasing in your sight, to lay before you the fact that you are of your father the Devil. And if you don't mind, please get behind me, Satan, for you are not mindful of the things of God.

Is that gentle?

God is always loving. But gentle doesn't always do the trick.

Now you've piqued my interest. I hope you are accurate in your assessment, but how did you witness this?


Allowing a firebomb to destroy everything or allowing a natural gas explosion to destroy everything, are equivalent to me. Either option requires the same moral decision from the decision maker.

This is from GC 35:



I've quoted this a number of times, trying to accentuate the point that the Jews caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them. This point cannot be overemphasized! It's key to understanding the role of God here.

It's not that God just decides He's going to punish, and so He decides to withdraw His protection, but *they* caused His protection to be withdrawn.

You're not addressing the issue I raised, but talking about something else. Also, the "I don't think this makes sense" was the start of a paragraph:



You didn't deal with the points I made, but instead chose to talk about something else. I'm not sure why.

Also you cut off what I wrote at a strange place. When I wrote "I don't see how this makes any sense," I was starting a new paragraph, which explained what I didn't think made sense and why.

I assume this is the principle you are talking about:
This is in reference to Jerusalem being razed by the Romans. Because of Israel's rejection of God, they were left to experience "Satan's vindictive power."

You are applying this principle to the examples I mentioned. Let's go into more detail. Let's look at the ones involving Moses, and see if Satan caused these deaths.

a) God ordering the stoning of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath.
b) God ordering the killing of the unrepentant calf worshipers, and blessing the Levites for doing it.

Let's start with the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath. Here's inspired commentary on that:
First, note that the stoning was "punishment" for showing "contempt for the authority of God."

Who commanded the congregation to "stone him with stones"? The Bible and SOP say that God said it through Moses. So, one option is that God commanded them to stone the guy.

Another option is that this is one of those cases where God is credited for doing something that He allowed Satan to do. If so, then it was Satan who said, "All the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." That would mean that Moses could not tell between Satan's voice and God's - Satan gave the command, but Moses thought it was God. Plus, Satan would be showing to the people that showing contempt for God's authority led to undesirable consequences.

Another option is that Moses wanted to kill this guy, and just told everybody that God told him to do it. That puts Moses in a rather bad light.

Another option is that God just "let nature take its course" and the stoning just happened by natural causes. But that seems strange, as the people actually took the guy outside the camp, picked up stones, and threw them at him. This was not some fortuitous lightning strike that just so happened to be there at the right place at the right time. This was the congregation acting in concert.

So here are the options I could think of:
1) God commanded it.
2) Satan commanded it.
3) Moses commanded it.
4) It just happened.

GC 35-36 notwithstanding, I find option #2 unbelievable. That would mean that Moses, the one who talked to God face-to-face, couldn't tell His voice from the voice of His archenemy. Plus it has Satan defending God's authority - not likely.

#3 makes Moses a bloodthirsty liar.

#4 is too off-the-wall to even consider as a real possibility.

#1 is what I'm going with. Both the Bible and SOP plainly say that God gave the command. And it was done to uphold God's authority. And we avoid having to throw out the first 5 books of the Bible.

Now let's turn our attention to the calf-worshipers:
We have the same basic options:
1) God commanded it.
2) Satan commanded it.
3) Moses commanded it.
4) It just happened.

Again, I'll go with #1. The Levites, who killed the unrepentant, "were acting by divine authority." That's God. They were "executing the sentence of the King of heaven." Again, that's God. "King of heaven" and "divine authority" cannot be attributed to anyone else but God.

What about #2, if indeed GC 35-36 applies here. This lawlessness, "if not speedily crushed, would run riot in wickedness, and would involve the nation in irretrievable ruin." If #2 is correct, then it is Satan who gets credit for ending the apostasy, and saving the nation from irretrievable ruin. Satan would be their deliverer. That just doesn't match Satan's character or his goals.

#3 is a possibility, since Moses was pretty upset with the whole thing. However, inspiration tells us this was the sentence of the King of heaven. That's not Moses.

#4 is off-the-wall again, as this required the participation of a large group of people. It didn't just happen accidentally.

Here's another aspect that points in favor of #1: "The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi." The Levites were blessed for doing this. Certainly, God would not bless them for doing Satan's will, or for being Satan instruments. In short, the Levites were faithful to God, not to Satan.

Here's the GC quote again:
I don't see how it applies to these two examples. Rather than Satan, I see God as being responsible for these.

I just made a post to address GC 35.


It's not universally applicable, as my post indicates.

And I don't think we have the power to force God to do something against His will. He is still sovereign.

"God's actions cannot always be seen as gentle and loving." I pointed out that it is always loving, but not always gentle.

You hypocrite.

Gentle? No. Loving? Yes.

Don't you agree, you son of the Devil?

Jesus is the truth. Yes, the truth causes pain when it must cut away error. Hence, my affirmation that God sometimes causes pain.

I don't know why you accuse me of teaching that God is non-loving at any time. You really thought I said God was not loving? Please, no straw men. If you want me to break it down like we do in logic class, I'll do that, but I think you are capable of doing that yourself.