MM, a weakness of your view is that it has no answer for the problem of evil. That is, why evil exists. The Open View answers this question by stating that God creating beings who could love and be loved, which entails risk, and that there is no way around this risk, given the existence of love. You don't have an answer to the question of why God would choose to create a being He was certain would invent sin as opposed to one He was certain would not.

I'm going to cross post this on the other thread about conditional/unconditional prophecies, as I think it fits better there.

Again, it sounds like you truly do think it is out of God's character which is why it "demands" finesse to whitewash it. I don't think I'm getting the point across clearly, but consider if Tom thinks anything "demands" finesse to support his view? I would say not, as God does not nor will not act out of His character nor does anything which would even appear that way nor uses methods evil men/angels use and therefore does not need anything to finesse it.

Trying again. Saying "delicate truth" hints at characterizing some mafia boss as needing to whitewash his acts in such a way for those with him to accept them as being "correct". For nothing "the boss" does is wrong, so it needs to be couched in a certain way to make it fit in with the morals of those who have joined him.

As in:
He just lopped off that guy's head for questioning him

turns into:
He needed to further the unity of the group to further it's ideals and cohesiveness so the action may be misunderstood, but was the result of providing support to the group for the benefit of all with only their best interests in mind.

It sounds like you're suggesting the cross was necessary to guarantee none of the future possible outcomes includes FMAs sinning. Also, I'm still not clear on why you believe God knows none of the future possible outcomes includes FMAs sinning (if knowing their character traits isn't the reason why).

Kland, I have no further comment.

Would that be an example of what I was trying to say and also an example of not being able to give logical support? I later heard on the radio they even used the word "whitewash", regarding Nazi Germany. I found that relevant.

I quoted Ellen White. It sounds like you're suggesting that she suggested the cross was necessary to guarantee none of the future possible outcomes includes FMAs sinning.



We're told that sin won't arise again. That must mean that there aren't any possibilities that include FMAs sinning, right? I'm not really understanding the question here (that is, why there even is a question).



I don't know what you're thinking is here, so don't know how to respond.

Did you notice #128477?

This is an interesting question. I think God, or Christ, will do things which appear out of character, to get someone's attention or call attention to some type of action. For example, there's the way Christ treated the person asking Him for help, saying that He had not come for dogs. He treated her like a typical Jew would, although it was very difficult for Him to do so. He wasn't able to keep up the charade for very long, but "broke down" and healed her, treating her with compassion, etc.

Christ's cursing the fig tree is another example.

Also God, in the time of Moses, was constrained to do many things that weren't His ideal will. Christ's comment about divorce being allowed is an example. The Israelites having a king is another. Violence is another. Polygamy is another.

It seems obvious to me, considering all the passages I've posted recently here and there, that Ellen believed the death of Jesus would have been unnecessary if A&E had successfully resisted Satan in Eden. But because they failed, God chose to implement the plan of salvation. As a result of A&E's failure what should have been settled in the beginning hasn't been settled in 6000 years. That is, the great controversy still hasn't been settled satisfactorily, at least not to the point Jesus can end it now. Again, had A&E succeeded, they and the rest of the universe would have been "rendered eternally secure" and would have enjoyed "perpetual favor with God." Which implies the evil angels would have been judged and executed. Otherwise, to what purpose would it have served God to continue granting them life and breath?


Right, I'm cool with "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me." But for some reason I thought you knew of reasons that transcend simple faith, simply taking God at His word. Assuming Nahum 1:9 implies none of the future possible outcomes involves FMAs sinning simply because it says so seems, well, a little too simple for someone of your talent and intelligence (I am not being sarcastic, as you well know, I believe you are a talented and intelligent person).


Yes, but I addressed it on the other thread. Is that what you wanted me to do?

Much finesse is required to explain why you believe we cannot take God at His word, that is, take what He said at face value, according to the most obvious meaning of the words He employed. "The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed." {GC 598.3}

For example, when it says God "slew" King Saul (1 Chronicles 10:14) you are quick to point out that it also says "Saul took a sword, and fell upon it" (verse 4). You then go on to say, with much finesse, that the Bible often gives God the credit for doing things which, in fact, He did not do.

You also, as you stated above, apologetically interpret the stories in the Bible where God commands His chosen people to "utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:3). You say, again with much finesse, that these kinds of stories, like the humane hunter illustration, represent God compromising character to reach the people in darkness, that is, commanding them to commit genocide was totally out of character but the times and circumstances forced Him.