His point is clear and twofold . . .


. . ., namely, 1) The "withdraw and permit" principle accounts for all the death and destruction attributed to God, and 2) God capitulated, compromised, gave in to the wicked will of the COI and commanded them to totally obliterate their enemies "men, women, and children".

I didn't see where he addressed why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. But in response to number 2 above, I have some questions - What was God's original plan for ridding the Promised Land of her heathen inhabitants? Why did God cave in and let the COI kill thousands of men, women, and children?

Let's try again. We'll change the subject to something else, say, butterflies. "All that one needs to know about butterflies was revealed by Dr. Seuss." "All that one can know about butterflies was revealed by Dr. Seuss." The former is a subset of the latter. Why? Because only things which can be known about butterflies could possible be things one needs to know. Once can't need to know things which can't be known. Got it?



I addressed this.



I agree that "needs to know" does not necessarily imply everything there is to know. It is a subset. Possibly a proper subset, or possibly the same set. Regarding "can know," that means things which one can know. Both the following statements are talking about "things."

A.Things which need to be known.
B.Things which can be known.

Let's say there are 3 things which need to be known, 1, 2, and 3. The number of things which can be known would have to be at least 3. If they are 3, they are precisely things 1, 2, and 3. If they are more than 3, they include things 1, 2, and 3, The phrase "things which can be known," must, of necessity, including things 1, 2, and 3. There can be no thing which needs to be known which cannot be known.



Sure she did. Right here:



This is speaking of Christ in His humanity, which she makes clear by saying:



You're hard to understand sometimes, MM. She clearly said that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It doesn't make sense to deny this. If you don't agree with this, that's another thing, but anyone can see what it says.



You doubt what? That kland could summarize it? Or that anyone else could? Keep in mind that not everyone who reads these posts posts themselves. So there are people reading things here that you may not be aware of. Also teresa might be able to summarize it. It wouldn't surprise me if Rosangela could as well. If you read the link I provided, chapter 9, you could summarize it yourself by simply copying and pasting from that.



I provided a link which discusses this.

The following insight is helpful:


The enforcement of capital punishment in accordance with the law of God was not the end of their punishment. It merely symbolized the full and final penalty awaiting them. Neither is the cause and effect deaths that result from breaking the natural laws the end of their punishment. It comes at the end of time. Again, Ellen White states it quite clearly:

What do you see me doing? Please post samples (include the context) of me doing something you find objectionable and unacceptable.

Will, good to see you again. It's been awhile. Hope all is well. And, thank you for the good advice.

I think rather than putting your own negative slant on what the write wrote, you'd be better off quoting her. After all, you complain when others do this to you. So why should you do it? Remember the Golden Rule!



His original plan was that the heathen repent and be converted.



Tsk, tsk! Remember the Golden Rule!

Here's what the author actually said:

MM, I feel constrained to point out that I think you're entire way of going about this is destined to be fruitless. I think to understand these things we need to study the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity, which the SOP tells us revealed everything we can know of God. I've also suggested that, given that all truths can only be known in the light of the cross, the great truth upon which all other truths cluster, it would be good to study that. But we spend 95% or more of our time here following the very approach I'm saying I disagree with.

How do you think Christ treated people? Would you say He was kind, gentle, and generous? Or vengeful, and violent? What do you think He taught? Did He teach us to be vengeful and violent, or to turn the other cheek? How did He Himself act when faced with torture and death by His enemies?

Do you think God is like this? Or is God fundamentally different in how He acts than what Jesus Christ lived and taught?

MM, I know you are "fixed in" to seeing the death of the wicked as being an imposed punishment, as opposed to a consequence of their own actions. Two questions come up. First of all, how does this fit in with DA 764?



Question two is, why do you think looking at sin as basically something innocuous, which only results in death in those who practice it because God kills them, as a superior way of looking at things then that sin results in death because of its nature? (i.e., that sin is lethal, as opposed to innocuous).

I'll tell you why I think the lethal view is superior. Under the lethal view, it is sin which is to be feared, and sin which is the enemy. Above all things, we need to be set free from its power. Under this paradigm, we see God as the Savior, who does whatever it takes, including sacrificing Himself in the person of His Son, to free us from its grips. We do not fear God, as one who will cause us excruciating pain and then kill us if we don't do what He says, but as one who warns us of the awful consequences of not believing what He tells us about sin and Satan.

If we view sin as innocuous, I don't see how we can avoid having negative views and feelings about God. In particular, it seems inevitable to me that we would be afraid of God. It seems our motivation in doing right would involving fearing the consequences of being caught in the hands of a vengeful God if we didn't.

youve forgotten already?!?

sorry, i forget others dont appear to have the memory God seems to have blessed me with.

i will save this and point it out each time it happens. i have just barely started documenting posts so dont have the specific times, yet.

having thought about your various posts and studied that chapter in light of those posts i would agree that it is accurate for what you believe.

but i need to stress, and strongly stress, that that is based on what she, the author, herself has said specifically and not on particular paraphrases, otherwise i would be slandering you and i do not wish to do that since it is a serious offense in the sight of God, justifiably warranting death, due to the serious repercussions it could cause to the person being slandered.

it is written: Deu 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
Deu 19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.