I know this. Where we differ is you perceive this to be a way that God destroys. That is, you see God as behind the destruction, even in times when He permits it. You seem this as simply one of the methods God uses.

What I perceive is that there are a thousand dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen, and when God withdraws His protection from these thousand dangers, this is sufficient to explain all the incidents where God is said to have done this or that violent thing. I suppose I should say this principle in conjunction with the principle that God is often presented as doing that which he permits.



This would be equivalent to God's doing the act Himself. It's different than the cases where God "commanded" the COI to "cause death and destruction" as holy angels have no proclivity to acting violently.



This doesn't make any sense to me. What I see happening is the holy angels restrain the destructive evil angels. The context of the GC statement, both before and after, bring out this is what's happening, as do other statements dealing with God's judgments and plagues, which I quoted previously.



Let's look at one of these:



Here's a parallel passage:



The first quote says: "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that causes the destruction or death of the wicked."

The second quote explains what this means:

1.The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed.
2.The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn.
3.Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one.
4.Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble.

There are many statements like this, and I've quoted a great many of these. I don't think quoting more will make any difference. I think you prefer to see God as being destructive. There's certainly enough evidence to see the *possibility* that He might not be destructive. To my mind, it makes a lot more sense to view the passages in inspiration, whether in Scripture or the SOP, according to the principle that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that destructive things occur when God is caused to remove His protection. It makes much more sense given the teaching of Jesus Christ. I just can't see that the view you have agrees at all with Jesus Christ, in either His life or teachings.



No, the context make clear that it applies. It says:



1.It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey.
2.And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath.
3.He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of.

There comes a time when, regarding the plagues, God "prevents them not." From the above we see that Satan is at work at sea and on land, by storm and tempest, in great wrath, because he knows his time is short. When Christ leaves the sanctuary, and Satan is no longer restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power.

It's very easy to see that this explains what will happen. It's only a lack of desire to see things this way that one lead one not to see it this way, it seems to me. That is, you have a view of God that causes you to prefer to see God as causing these things as opposed to Satan. That's the real root of our difference.



No. Read the parts in bold from our conversation. That's what I'm saying.



There are a thousand dangers, all unseen, from which God protects us. When He is caused to remove His protection, one of these unseen dangers may impact us.



I'm saying what I said.



I gave this as an example of one way. That doesn't mean it's the only way. I don't see this as important to discuss. I think the general principle is sufficient. The general principle is that God had a plan, and a way of doing things. When man chose Satan as ruler, Satan's government came into play on earth, and we see all sorts of bad things as a result of that. All the bad things that happen are due to sin and Satan. God doesn't cause any of them.



Regarding the light we're discussing:



It seems that Moses countenance was glowing because he had been in presence of Christ, and it was the presence of transgressions in their life that was the problem:



If it were simply a physical manifestation, the their transgressions wouldn't have caused them to be unable to look at Moses' countenance.

Yes indeed.

I take it you disagree with each and every observation I made in response to Tom's explanation. Be that as it may, it is exactly what he is saying or implying on this thread and elsewhere on this forum.

Tom, to be clear, are you saying the "same destructive power" exercised by holy and evil angels when God commands and permits should be interpreted to mean "the same restraining power"? If so, in what sense do you think evil angels exercise the "same restraining power" as holy angels do?

as you see (read) it. other people get a different picture of what he is saying.

I'm not sure your picture of what Tom is saying is quite the same as his own. In any case, it does seem true that you are getting a different picture of what he is saying. I happen to agree with Mike in this case, so I guess we could say "other people get the same picture of what Tom is saying."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think if we go back to the example someone gave earlier in this thread, we find it to be quite valid here, although I understand that you did not like it for some reason.



Your response to this was...



Two questions here:

1) Does any being "have power" compared to God?
2) What sort of "protection" is this when God has Himself created the dangers?

It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You say that when God withdraws His power, the elements of nature wreak havoc and destruction, not God. But who created nature?

Why would God need to protect us from that which He Himself created?

In other words, to me, your attempt at a gentle picture of God raises some less-than-gentle questions that attack His character in yet a new way.

Either God controls nature, which He created, or He doesn't. If He does control it, how can it ever be rightly said that when a nature-driven plague causes destruction, God was not responsible?

If He does NOT control nature, is that not irresponsible of Him? I guess we could stop singing the song "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, MM, this isn't true. Sometimes your observations are correct.



The best you could say is this is how it appears to you, but quite often your observations are wrong, IMO. For example, in this very post you say:



which is, given what I've posted, incredibly wrong. As I've pointed out to you repeatedly, just recently, in this past week (!!), it is I who brought this out to you (that nature is not self-acting), and it is I who quoted from the SOP to establish the point that nature is not self-acting.

Many of your observations on what I write are based on assumptions you hold about things, as opposed to being based on things I actually said.



No.



No, not so.

You're still not considering the context of the quote, MM. Quoting a single sentence without reference to what was said immediately before or after isn't very persuasive.

Boy, this is sure cryptic. I sure hope you address the following:

1.What do you think I'm saying?
2.How does this differ from what you think teresa thinks I'm saying?
3.What do you think MM thinks I'm saying?

You're asking if any being is as powerful as God?



IMO, this assumes a false premise. God didn't created the dangers.



I'm saying that nature does not work as originally designed, because of sin. For example, the mountains are different than originally created, there weren't great barren deserts or oceans, etc. I'm saying that in spite of nature not working as originally designed, God still, at times, protects us from the dangers of nature. When disasters occur, it's because God has permitted it, since God is omnipotent, and nothing can happen with His permitting it. But God's permitting a thing to happen is not equivalent to His causing the thing to happen, although God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.

God's character is such that He assumes responsibility for that which He does not do. He "restores that which He did not steal." This is in contrast to Satan, who not only does not accept responsibility for what he's done, but blames God.



Because we need protection. For example, man did not have the strength to deal with dinosaurs, so God permitted them to die off.



If a person is determined to attack God's character, I suppose this is possible.



Do you mean control as in manage, or control as in micro-manage? That is, does God oversee nature, to make sure that we are in an environment where we can live, so the Great Controversy can continue? Or does God place every molecule wherever it goes, so that whenever anything at all destructive happens, we could rightly conclude that God is behind it?

Or did you have something other than these two ideas in mind?



If you're talking about the micro-managing scenario, I'd agree with you, that, in this case, God would be responsible.



I suppose if we view control as equivalent God's directing every molecule, then that could be the case.

Let me ask you a question in return. Do you think anytime some destructive act in nature occurs (let's exclude those times where Satan is causing some disaster to occur, as in Job), that God is behind this? For example, Katrina, the sunami around Christmas in Asia several years ago, etc. Is it your view that God caused all these things to happen?