This isn't accurate. I've given several reasons, but you've rejected them. That's not the same thing.

For example, I've pointed out that if you have an idea that nobody else has had, that should at least make you skeptical. Also, I've suggested reasons for why you shouldn't use sarcasm and insults. I wrote a long post on this, with many inspired statements, but you just brushed off the post.



It depends upon what we're talking about here. If it's just theological issues, I wasn't so much attempting to get you to change your mind as to try to understand why you were thinking the way you were. If we're talking about not using sarcasm and insults, or quoting texts that you cite, then you should change your mind out of consideration for others.



This is a good example. This is a cryptic statement, followed by a reference, without the text. So to figure out what you mean, which may well be an insult anyway, I'd have to look up the text, and decipher what you wrote. And this is because it's not "worthwhile" to you to clearly write out what you're thinking, and to quote a text.



Apparently anything having to do with substance, as opposed to insults or sarcasm.



This is completely out of line. I've said nothing negative about the Godhead in any way, whether implicitly or otherwise. For you to construe a disagreement I have with how *you* understand something as my, I can't even repeat what you wrote, it's so disrespectful, is the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier comments.



I've read some of your blog. I have a limited amount of time. When it's on point to some issue we're discussing, I would read that. I would read it now, if you want to provide a link to some topic we've been discussing here.



It's too bad you have such an apparently negative view of others. Why wouldn't I be interested in how you think?

For one thing, how you think is probably not unique. So in learning how you think, I am learning how others think as well.

For example, in regards to the tree of life issue, where sin is not organically related to death, I've come across others with a similar idea. This is an idea which has never made sense to me, so I was interested in at least trying to understand how you're thinking when you come to the conclusions that you do.

kland: My suggestion, as necessarily usual: Try dealing with reality (i.e., what I actually said and meant), then you won’t have such circular misunderstanding.

Tom: I could easily debunk every point that you’ve advanced, but that would be an utter waste of my time as I have already address the more substantive issues and would simply be restating those points. As for the peripheral issues, there no use wasting time dealing with your spurious spins. Btw, have you yet read my here, issue pertinent, “War in Heaven” blog post??? That is indeed foundational to my view here. And it is actually too bad that you’ve opted to, and continue to obfuscate in this discussion, and that quite spuriously!! And if you need to take what I have said derogatively, instead of honestly understanding why they are statements of factual depictions, then I really can’t help you. And if applicably quoting Jesus is, “(derogative) sarcasm and insults” then we’re all in trouble!??

NJK, if you have in mind the points I've made regarding insults and sarcasm, and being considerate of others, I'm sure you couldn't debunk these points. If you'd like to try, please start by responding to post which had the quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy. You'll note in that post that she points outs that Christ *resisted* the temptation to use sarcasm in His treatment of others.

I was unable to find any reference in her writings that referenced either sarcasm or insulting others as a positive thing, in any circumstance. I was interested in your assertion that Christ used these methods, which leads me to believe that perhaps you view these methods in a positive light. If you'd like to defend this idea, that using sarcasm on others and insulting them is a method approved by heaven, and is an effective way of dealing with others in regards to spiritual things, I'd be interested in reading this.

I can't think of any points I made other than these, so if you had something else in mind, you'd have to point out what it is.

If you'll post the link to your blog post, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Regarding discussing substantial issues, the ball is in your court. I've responded to several of your posts, and am waiting for a response to them. If you'll respond, I'll respond in kind. Or I'll await the link to your war in heaven post, and respond to that.

Btw perhaps fixing the typo in the following previous statement may diffuse this “perfect example” attempt of yours here:



And, really/seriously, what’s the substantive difference between quoting a verse vs. citing its reference, (other than taking more of my time). As I said, I’ll take the time to state the text when there is a significant exegetical adjustment to make.

While on this Matt 23:24 issue here (which also involves your completely ignoring of the many Scriptures/passages that your view cannot explain away), why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?

--------

Perhaps the term “sarcasm” only can connote: ‘witty language used to convey insults or scorn’ and that is either what I meant nor what I believed Christ used. Hence I do not see my statements as such. Along the lines of Christ’s figurative, even at times extreme language to convey a truth (and the Truth does hurt at times when indeed true), my comments were intended to convey such, especially ‘thought out truths’, i.e., ideas/positions taken to their incontrovertible truthful/natural extreme. So e.g., when you (1) just ignore comments which address God’s legislation of Capital Punishment and depopulating/dispossessing wars (2) imply that Christ’s direct judgement parable on the destruction of Jerusalem was wrong vs. EGW statements (3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’), among many other examples that can be cited here, then that is tantamount to “implying that ‘any member of this united Godhead can be like old senile geezer’ as people who are deemed and or clinically diagnosed as such are similarly just so ignored and dismissed by “sane” people as they are seen as people who don’t know/mean what they are saying and/or eccentrically overreact, among other slightings to them. (And, also in keeping with the Truth of Matt 23:24, I consider (your) obfuscating [= (a form of) lying] to be much more “condemnable” that my use of figurative speech to actually also accentuate that self-justified waywardness (Matt 7:1-5)).

As I already illustratively said, it was with this extreme cautioning that I made my comments as (a) other substantive approaches were quite self-evidently so obliviously and/or indifferently being chucked aside (b) a completely unbiblical approach of not making the Bible the final authority/arbitrator was not being used. And if one really understands this ‘non- pejorative but figurative summary warning statements’ you also realize that they are, if you choose to accept them, a better alternative than the cutting truth of plain statements. However, as in Christ’s time, people will always opt to only see what they can surfacely claim to find fault with and thus seek to save face. So, also as with Christ’s doing such figures of speech will either constructive illumine one in the dark, or confrontatingly blind them, all depending on how one wants to “use/approach” them.

Once again, here’s the link to the “War in Heaven” Post.

My records show that I have not responded to only two posts of yours which I had considered to be substantive. Namely Posts #132660 & #132682. After that, your posts insisted on dealing with non-substantive and peripheral things. I thus saw no point in continuing to respond to your prior posts, especially as these also had, in my opinion, objections that were non-exegetical, obfuscating and “spins”, all of which you could have honestly answered for yourself, especially as a Seminarian.

Btw, as a general principle/statement, Christ could only “imitate” the Father, and perfectly at that, by what He read in the Law and the Prophets (=OT). That was the major source of His revelation of the Father, if not the only source other than what He stated He was shown (e.g., Luke 10:18 or some other SOP indications of this. (Other non-visionary revelations are actually related in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 17:1-13). So to not take into consideration all of the acts of God in the OT, as they have been revealed by God’s Spirit through His prophets and other authors (cf. 2 Pet 1:20, 21 & 2 Tim 3:16), is doubly unbiblical.

And you are overlooking all of the ‘balls of substantive points’ that are strewn in your court which you just did not bother to hit back during this discussion. Indeed it completely myths me how you claim to not see those substantive points, while many times, you quibbling addressed a peripheral comment right next to it, or worst, spun that substantive point into a completely irrelevant tangent. You can retrace your points of departures throughout this discussion if you now want to answer these issues head on, otherwise, I had made my point, which includes my mere reference citations of supporting Bible texts, and most honest reader would have already clearly see that. Patently, not addressing them when they were later restated just confirmed your modus operandi here. So the discussion onus is entirely upon you here.

---

Another general/foundational point here, my view, as I had initially stated in my first post in this thread, of God’s capital punishment for sin is that some of them were flagrantly high-handed and if allowed to mature to their fullness who immediately threaten the life of even righteous people. That is how/why I see that God intervenes/legislates to justly bring about “premature” deaths. You instead claim a supposed ‘organic link between sin and death’, then if that is to be the answer here, why weren’t every single sin legislated to be deserving of Capital Punishment and why didn’t God instruct Israel to destroy and depopulate all of the surrounding sinful nations against, including those not close to them (Deut 20:10-18)?? Under your view, God actually cannot be fair, merciful nor just if ‘all sin is to be equally, organically deadly’.

MM didn't know there was something contrary to God killing Saul. If I have correctly deciphered your statement, would you be saying you are not aware of a contrary statement either? And if such a statement can be shown, does that mean other places, where you are ignorant of other statements, there could, in fact, be such statements? Taking it further, does that mean not being aware of something doesn't make it false?

(Try looking at the first part of the relevant chapter)

kland,

-It is I, NJK Project, who made that comment,

-I don’t begin to understand what point you are trying to make,

-Tom likely will as he made that comment.

My approach here, as normative, is to first ascertain what the concrete reality is before speculating.

That's the main difference, indeed. You feel that your time is more valuable than your readers, but Scripture enjoins us to consider the interests of others as more valuable than our own. This is how God Himself treats us, and if ever there was anyone who had time which was more valuable than our own, it was God's. But look how generous Christ was with His time.

I'm sure some of the time you know the text by heart, in which case it would indeed take more of your time to look it up and copy/paste it. However, there may be many people who read these posts, so if there's 10 people who spend a minute to look up the text, this is 10 minutes you could have saved of other people's time by simply quoting it yourself.

And if there are cases where you look up the text yourself online, it doesn't make any sense at all not to copy/paste it, as you're right there anyway.



Is it possible for you to make comments or requests without throwing insults at the same time? If it is, please control yourself, and do so. It makes it very unpleasant to read your posts. Don't you think that engaging in a discussion of spiritual matters should be a pleasant activity?



This says that the LORD killed Saul.



This says Saul committed suicide.



I assume you mean "neither what I meant nor what I believed Christ used."

Here's an example of what your sarcasm:



I can't believe you don't understand both that this is sarcastic, and why it's sarcastic. It's also difficult for me to believe that you would think that Christ would use language and tactics like this.



If the truth hurts when true, then it doesn't make sense to add insults or sarcasm on top of that. The truth itself causes enough pain. So it should be administered as gently as possible, and this is exactly what I see in Christ.

Here's a good example of this. In the feast at Simon's house, Simon said to himself, "If this man were a prophet (referring to Christ), he would know what manner of woman this was (referring to his niece, Mary Magdalene)." Now it was Simon himself who had led Mary into sin, so he was being extremely hypocritical here. Christ knew exactly what was going on, and dealt with things in such a way that only Simon understood what was going on. That is, only Simon understood that Christ knew of Simon's hypocrisy, and that Christ was explaining this to Simon in the parable He told. The SOP tells us that had Christ not been so gentle and tactful, Simon would have been eternally lost. Instead, because of Christ's gentleness and care, a soul was one for the kingdom.



It doesn't come across like this at all. It just seems like your lashing out because your angry.



Regarding (1), I didn't ignore these comments, but commented on them. Regarding (2), you misunderstood the point here. The point wasn't that Christ's direct judgment parable was wrong (which a little thought should show is an impossible idea), but that the language was directly attributing to God that which God permitted. This really shouldn't have been misunderstood, since this is exactly the point I made, and the language that I used.

The context was supporting the idea that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. I gave several examples of this, of which the above was one.



It's a common idea, if you look at commentaries, that a natural disaster of some sort occurred in the 5 cities on the plain. There's nothing in either Scripture nor the SOP that precludes this idea. The idea cited is no more speculative than your own.



This is an example of something that shouldn't be written. This is disrespectful to God, in addition to myself. I'm really not understanding how you don't perceive this.



This was very unclear. Perhaps shorter sentences would be clearer.



There's nothing denoting caution in your writing. It just comes across as spiteful and angry. Please feel free to get the opinion of others reading what you wrote if you disagree.



When you write something like, "-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah 'blind...'," it's clear what's going on.



This is another example of the type of thing I was referring to earlier. It's a delusion to think that you're playing the role of Christ with your insults and sarcasm. I realize it's difficult, if not impossible, for you to accept such comments from me, since you're angry at me, so I ask you to take counsel from someone you trust. Ask someone else to read your posts, someone whom you trust to be objective, and ask them what they think of your tone.



Thanks. I'll take a look.



How could anyone disagree with you over what posts you consider to be substantive?



I am responding to what you wrote. I'm dealing with the things you're choosing to talk about.



You're not dealing with the real issues involved, IMO. This is a reason I've suggested dialoging with kland. I perceive he's been trying to make the same point.



This is exactly the point I was making. So if we perceive a difference between what Christ revealed in the Gospels, and what Christ read in the Law and the Prophets, then we are perceiving a difference which Christ Himself did not perceive, since He revealed that which He perceived. So by considering what Christ revealed, we see not only what Christ did and said, but what Christ perceived God to be saying and doing in the Law and the Prophets.



Your writing is verbose and difficult to understand at times. I have a limited amount of time, but have tried to respond as best I can, given the above limitations. I have repeatedly suggested if there is some point I have missed, to please restate it. Instead of doing so, you keep insulting me, but these insults ring hollow. Why not simply restate what point it is you are wishing to make, or whatever question you have? As I've pointed out, this is what MM and I do with each other. We've been discussing things for years. Often one of us feels like a point or question isn't being addressed, and we bring that up, often time repeatedly, until we feel it's been resolved. We don't feel the need to level charges against the other in so doing.



The organic relationship between sin and death is dealing with the second death. Before the resurrection, there's bound to be much injustice, because we live in a world where Satan has a great deal of sway.

Regarding events of judgment, a key point I have been making is that there are thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God guards us. It's simply unnecessary for God to directly use violence to judge others, as it's more than sufficient for Him to remove His protection to enable whatever destructive act one might desire (I'm speaking here in the language of men, as men understand things, as God does not desire any evil to come across anyone, and these things which God permits to occur, He does so with great remorse).

I know I am using those key saved moments from not doing the work of pointedly selecting/copying/special pasting/spacing/numbering/formatting/coding Bible texts [from my Bibleworks] (which people will probably read in their own favorite version) to work on my humanitarian works project, including saving the lives of would be aborted infants. So I consider these more than particularly non-aiding SDAs and also myself here. That procedure is not going to change so no need to try to make an issue out of it. (And it probably would take over 10X more time for me to do so with texts, especially the many texts I cite, than someone looking it up. And saving other people time is a non-factor here as our time is individually, applicably distinct and not cumulative.)



Applicably citing Matt 23:24 or anyone other such factual comments of Christ such as ‘blind” are not insults. Sorry you can’t “see” (pun intended) the applicable fact here. And to render moot the “reaction”, become conscious of the offensive “action” and seek to avoid it. As I said before, I don’t suffer for, or “take it” for other peoples misdeeds or errors, especially when baseless and/or indifferent, (cf. John 18:22, 23), except when paramountly, Spiritually purposeful (Matt 26:59-63ff; 27:12-14).



It is indeed because of the Great Spiritual implications of this discussion, at least possibly, that such quibblingly majoring on minor issues indeed upsets and annoys me. I know I am not merely aiming to ‘have a good time” here but to get at that achievable absolute Truth. (Cf. 1 Sam 17:28-30). So the ignoring of exegesis, especially from those who can, or should be able to, engage it, is moreoverly more “mystifying” to me.



1 Chron 10:14 uses a Hiphil tense to say “killed”, meaning that God’s killing action would be ‘indirect and mediated’. So by God not doing anything to protect Saul’s life in that war, as he normatively did when any Israelite went out to fight, and then with Saul being captured and about to be put to death, before he pre-empted this and did it himself, there, exegetically is no contradiction here. 1 Chron 10:14 already was indicating that this would be done through an indirect and mediated action of God.



Again being (spiritually) blind is not sarcasm nor an insult and indeed here based upon factual/substantive observations. Claiming this is an insult impinges Christ’s use of it. So the issue here is that you are the one who is not “seeing” the applicability here and not that it is sarcasm or an insult.



I actually have not added any “insults or sarcasm” to the factual observation (=Truth) statements I made to you. You simply are not taking them as I factually and non pejoratively meant them.



Manifestly if Simon, the Pharisee had immediately proceeded to audibly condemn Christ with these blind thoughts, he would been met/treated as Christ usually dealt with those Jewish leaders, however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment. Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.



As stated above, I am, with cause, upset, annoyed and angry, pointedly because it is causing an unnecessary and wasteful consumption of time on my part. Indeed nothing like e.g., shoddy exegesis from one who could, or should be able to, do better to cause this. The ignorance of Biblical statements similarly also causes this. Seriously speaking, I see it as “righteous indignation” and there “righteously” is plenty of that in the Bible (e.g., Neh 13:25; Matt 3:7) even with Jesus Himself (e.g., twice forcefully cleansing the Temple.) [Of course, you are surely going to object to that reaction of mine here, however seek to substantively deal with the implicated facts here.]



Do point me to the posts where you have commented on, especially my comments to you on God-Ordained Capital Punishment. I have not see those responses.



Your view that the Bible shows God doing things that are only permitted is not tenable, as I see that God also does what he directly allows. (E.g, the ‘serpents in the wilderness’) Also the other examples you have cited thus far (Saul, Destruction of Jerusalem) do not check out. The former here was demonstrated above, the latter in that Christ made His predictive parable statements stating a direct implication of God. And historically, great mercy was involved in that 70 A.D. judgement which automatically showed that God did not enitrely leave it up to the control of Satan, if he had any control in it at all. As I have stated, this is because the end of the world would not come to occur then as it could have. Also EGW application of that second method of destruction here does not check out on my levels and points. I thus have not seen that those inserted EGW comments/applications in the GC account, pp. 35-37, to be validly done.

You are also, from my exegetical methodology perspective, wrongly using a handful of supposed, and actually not conclusive examples, to define all other examples. That is not proper exegesis. The whole foundation of your view is not solid to me for you to be going ahead and building a high rise building on it.

So, quite seriously speaking, I see not valid, even viable Biblical, even SOP basis for your ‘wholesale, indirect Divine judgements’ view.



I’ve never heard of it before, at all in neither Christian or SDA circles. Commentaries don’t begin to make any significant statement here as they are merely speculating. The clear Bible and SOP statements do not leave opportunity this view as they both say that God cause the fire and brimstone to come down from Heaven and EGW would have easily been shown this. Also it can easily be verified if a volcano exists on that archeological site. Volcanoes just don’t disappear. And how does a supposed Flood Salt rock eruption come to affect that S&G destruction hundreds of years later?



How does this come to be disrespectful to/of God. It’s not even remotely true and is indeed not aimed at all at God! That statement is only speaking of what your view is doing to the Godhead. So the equivocating attempt here is completely spurious and diversionary. Indeed I wrote this in order to end this optional/backseat, non-authoritative treatment of the Godhead done from your view. And, as with all other views where God is so slighted, this all stems from, factually speaking, poor exegesis and shoddy/unscientific exegetical methods.



Actually your summary response here is very unclear. Upon re-reading it still seems perfectly clear to me. I see no need to restate/edit it. Try reading it slowly.



This issue has already been addressed in various answers above. An objective, responsible attitude on your part would heed the cautioning warnings here instead of disregarding them. But of course since you are not seeing anything wrong with your approach/view then that probably can’t begin to be cautioning, Like, surfacely being viewed, a cross-guard holding up his Stop Sign at an intersection on a late Sunday evening.



As I already, substantiatively, said , I am indeed upset/annoyed/angry. And to me, deferring to Christ’s use of “blind” here is quite commendable, even I may be the only saying so. Truth is not a popularity contest. I am used by now to people vexatiously spuriously/tangentially/peripherally quibbling/obfuscating/ with my substantive/factual/exegetical statements which they cannot answer head on and/or counter.



Applying the Bible where pertinently applicable is not in any way a delusion. And one does not have to be, or think to be Christ to validly do that. Again deal with the substantive implicated issues if you really want to make any valid countering/explanative/disculpating point here.



Easy... through substantive and factual answers/arguments. Indeed the issues addressed in those posts objectively show what was “substantive” vs. ‘what was only dealing with anything else but the substantive.’



As I see it, you have quite slyly tried to deal with anything and everything else that was not pointedly relevant to the topical substance of this discussion, indeed many times, as it can easily be seen, “leap frogging” substantive points to deal instead with the peripheral. The ironic things is that if you had chosen to deal with the substantive, including engaging exegesis, these side issues would not even have become a factor. You can easily look over this discussion and causally see where and why these side/peripheral issues came to be.



IMO, the issues you are claiming are either not: biblically substantiated, exegetically valid and/or not pointedly pertinent/relevant.



The fundamental/crucial/pivotal problem is that you, incomprehensibly, “selectively” do not see that Christ did not e.g., do away with Capital Punishment, legal restitution, desire to immediately send Hell Fire on Earth, use physical force to immediately execute his desire (Temple cleansings); designed to keep the Jewish leaders in their Spiritual, and that, defaultly, darkness from the start, and so that judgement and physical destruction would be achieved, spoke of these judgements as acts effectuated by God Himself, among many other such examples where Christ did indeed uphold the righteous judgement acts of God of the OT. You only see what your view one-sidedly aims to see. I therefore see no difference at all between the OT God and Jesus, whereas you do, hence the need of your view to seek to, effectively, “whitewash”, the OT factual accounts.



My "verbosity", which merely is explaining a single point in many words, does not explain why you have entirely not responded to that actual point at all, or instead found some tangential side issue in the response to focus upon.

As I said here, as I moreoverly have already made my points, then if you want to defend yourself then you do this retracing work as it is stemming from you having overlooked those stated points. I don’t need to keep repeating/restating myself. Time is also a factor for me and I don’t see this as a worthwhile expending of it. I also do not see your excuse here as honest/valid as you do select from these posts what you want to answer and just overlook the rest.



So then, according to your specification here, there should not be the objection of yours to my point on my God instituted capital punishment, wars, divine judgements which all bring about this “First death”!? Yet from the very start, and throughout this discussion, up to this answer here, you were stating this as the main objection to my view, indeed suddenly ‘insisting’ that my initial response in this thread come to involve this “Second Death”. By the way, and as I said before, I do not see anything different between the first and second death in regards to sin. In fact God also supernaturally acts to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings.



As I said, your view does not exegetically check out for none of the examples you have brought up. To have to exegetically, literally reword the Bible to make every related direct action speculatively mean something other than what the Bible or SOP states is a complete non-starter for me, especially as it indeed has no valid basis. I’ll go by what they Bible and SOP clearly state vs. your, man-speculatively-opining, unproven/unsubstantiated theory. In case you are not noticing this, that is how men come to actually undermine and make void the word of God, because now its truthfulness is dependent on the quite limited understandings, uniformed, and subjectiveness of man, and, moreover, now Western men living 2000+ years after the first handedly observed and recorded facts.

It is that Spiritually logical to me, and a very easy choice to make.

In those cases where she plainly says God “used His enemies as instruments to punish” impenitent sinners, can it be said “their sufferings are . . . a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God”?


Obviously the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” does not contradict what she wrote in the PC 136 quote posted above. I believe the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that Jesus had no justifiable reason for withdrawing His protection and permitting His enemies to punish the Jews in 70 AD. The truth is, Jesus was justified.

“Needs to know” makes it clear it doesn’t include everything there is to know about God.


“Elsewhere” refers to the OT and the NT (excluding the Gospels).


Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty? It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.


I said I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.


Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point.