Do you disagree with my comment? That is, this one:





This isn't what was said. What was said was this:



Also, in conjunction with this, the following:



So you can see it was not simply that God removed His protection and saw what happened that was said.

Anyway, my point was that we should present the views of others accurately, in harmony with their intentions, as much as in our power to do so.

I completely agree with it. I just wanted to point out that you seem to be very sensitive when it is your view being presented, but not so sensitive when it is another's.

Specifically about the view we are discussing now, you say I presented it in a derogatory way, yet said nothing that disputes its truthfulness. Anyway, more on that later.

I'm glad you agreed with the point I was making! I hope we can all post with this in mind.

I try to be as sensitive to others as I can be. I spend a great deal of time going over posts before posting, sometimes hours, looking at this very thing, trying to see if I've put things as Christ would have me put them. That doesn't mean I always succeed, but I can assure you this is extremely important to me.

When you complained before was not involving a post of mine, but of kland's.

Regarding my being sensitive in regards to my posts, Teresa brought up the point, not me. I agreed with her point, and commented, as I thought there might be some interest in my opinion on the regard, since I was the subject matter.

Regarding my being sensitive about what others post regarding my view, a vast percentage of the time I just let things go. I've been here over 5 years, and have reported in all this time maybe 5 posts.

I rarely complain about problems I see with posts, including distortion of meaning, sarcasm, personal attacks, and so forth. If I did, I'd spend all of my time doing that rather than discussing issues. Also, people tend to be very defensive and not very open to seeing or admitting error, so I don't see much point in it. Occasionally I find something so over the top I feel constrained to say something about it, but I usually regret it.

One thing I have brought up is having my views misrepresented and not being quoted. However, I had an insight about this which I shared recently (just a few posts ago) using MM as an example. While it's frustrating to me to have my views misrepresented, and to not be quoted, given that I'm expressing ideas which are new to many people, it's not surprising that they're misunderstood, so I probably shouldn't complain about that either.

GC made the statement in question, not you. Unless you have something else in mind, in which case I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sorry, I missed this (the Tom part).

If you'll check back, you'll see that I asked you a question which was clarifying a principle you were suggesting. I had said something in regards to God's causing excruciating pain, and you said (going from memory) that this was OK if it was eternally beneficial. Those in the inquisition applied excruciating pain to the ones they were interrogating. They did so for the purpose for an end that would be eternally beneficial, which is the principle you were suggesting. So I asked how this was different than the principle you were suggesting. The only difference I saw was that they were in error in thinking what they were doing would be eternally beneficial.

But what if it had been eternally beneficial? Would what they did have been OK?

I think this is a relevant and interesting question, which I don't think you answered. If you did, I don't recall the answer, and would still be interested in knowing your thoughts on this.

At any rate, this isn't comparing your view to the inquisition, but asking for clarification on how it's different.

At least, this is my recollection. Do you disagree? (If so, you could quote something I said, and we could discuss it)

Basically it's getting at the question if the ends justify the means, which, based on your statement that it's OK to cause excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial, it seems you agree with.

i started a topic for this here
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=117600#Post117600

if all relevant posts could be moved and carried on there i would be highly grateful.

and i appreciate, in advance, the conscious cooperation of all in trying to keep this thread on topic from now on. thank you.

This is option #1, which I wrote, and chose as describing GC 35: God withdraws His protection and watches to see what happens next.

Anyway, let's continue to dig.

Derogatory? As derogatory as saying that Serena Williams grunts or Kobe shoots a lot. But is it an accurate representation of what you believe?

Let's look at some details. So, let's say God withdraws His protection from the Jews, which is easy to do because EGW said it first (the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them).

From there, we have two possibilities: God orchestrates what happens next, or He does not. I believe we both agree that you believe that God DOES NOT orchestrate what happens next.

So, what does that mean? That means He watches what happens next. He might not make it happen, but He surely sees it happening. Therefore, God watched the bad things happen to the Jews who no longer had His protection. I trust we are in agreement so far.

OK, let's look at the "derogatory" part: as if God were ignorant or apathetic. I'm not sure what you believe here, though I have some guesses, so I'll let you explain yourself.

IGNORANT
When God's protection was withdrawn, did God know what was going to happen next? If He did know what would happen next, He would not be ignorant. But it would mean that He withdrew His protection knowing that bad things were going to happen, and He watched as they happened.

APATHETIC
When these bad things were happening to the Jews, did God have the ability to stop them from happening? If God was unable to stop the bad things, then He cannot be charged with apathy, since it was beyond His control. However, if God did have the ability to stop these bad things, then either He did not care that they were happening, or He preferred that they happen over them not happening. So we have something that looks like a binary tree.

So, since you do not believe that God orchestrated the bad things that happened after His protection was withdrawn, these are the possible options. How would you characterize God's action/inaction after withdrawing His protection?

I don't think I made any comment on your statement (if I did, it was inadvertent). I was only intending to address GC's.

Regarding your following post, the same comment applies. It looks like we're talking past each other.

the only reason i have not commented yet is because it would continue the direction this thread keeps taking.

but i have gone back and documented the various sequences to address when appropriate and for starting topics relevant to the issues addressed.