From your previous sin-organic comment such as in Post #130881 which was responding to my Capital Sins judgment view in Post #130766 it is apparent that you have believed that all judgements, whether in this life or in the Second Death (Hell), must involve an ‘organic sin’ issue. I.e., God does not have to do anything but let the result of sin take its course.

I do not see this as being realistically feasible in the sense that sin is not always allowed to reach its ‘“full life” which then results in self inflicted natural death’, indeed as an old person naturally dies of old age (James 1:15). God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death causing judgement in order to end this manifestly sure to get worse sin development. And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.



All of the examples you have tried to demonstrate for this have been transparently, exegetically shown to be acts of God. I.e., God either actively did the action (Piel) or he caused it (Hiphil) through His pointedly commissioned angels. All your ‘natural third party self-acting agents’ claims have been shown to both be exegetically not supported (including by the SOP testimony) and/or not naturally realistic. You have not provided objectively valid, if actually any, countering reasons why they should continue to be considered as you originally claimed them to be.



In Jesus’s predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem, he not only speaks of God removing His protection but ‘commandingly involved in the destruction event” (Matt 22:7) indeed just as the Jews before had said it should be done (Matt 21:40, 41). As I understand it, the fact that God was involved and that this was never intended to be an action entirely controlled and achieved by the Devil, even if through the Roman armies, was that, as Jesus later pointed out, God wanted to have mercy in this event and cut these days short (cf. Matt 24:22) so that some of the Jews could survive. As I now more precisely understand it. It was because God then had planned ca. 20 more years before the Second Coming could occur and perhaps this judgement would help to make these surviving, ‘pacific Jews’ realize their sin and seek Gospel/New Covenant repentance.

EGW comments in GC 35-37 are not in opposition to these exegetical and exegetically derived facts as her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve. Hence her pivotal phrase “direct decree of God” (GC 35.3). Indeed it extends to even a judgement that was fully warranted, as with the Jews, their 70 A.D. destruction which was for the rejection and murder of their Messiah did not have to be as if God had decreed it to be irreversible. It was because they continued in unbelief and rejection during the 40 years since, and in the light and testimony of the Gospel message that they suffered the natural end results of God not protecting them. Still, as Jesus had indicated in Matt 22:7, it was God who, just like He had done with Babylon in the OT, sent the Romans against the Jews to effectuate this judgement, even though they were clearly pondered and reluctant to do so. And as I see it, it was so that this judgement could here timely be done to allow for enough time (ca. 20 years) for the rest of Christ Olivet Discourse prophecy to be fully fulfilled and thus culminating in the Second Coming. However the Christian Church proved not faithful to this charge as seen in the messages to the 7 Churches, which was indeed based on literal developments and which God then typologically used as capital points that He would object to in the now to be Historically developed NT Church.



I do not believe that “it is God’s will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him”. That view fits in the mold of what EGW decried as ‘Satan’s claim of God’s direct decree’. By illustration, that is like a judge wanting a person who simply got a speeding ticket to get the death penalty and acting irrespective of facts to “decree” that this be the case. God instead is exercising just justice and the capital punishment death penalties that He rules through full and transparent justice are all warranted sentences. The more light and thus opportunities to avert the sin resulting in this death, the more delayed that punishment is. Still that punishment is not set in stone for those who genuinely want to repent. It is only by them persisting in their wayward course that these “forge the fetters” that cause them to indeed receive that associated or necessitated punishment and through whatever expedient or as-natural-as-possible means it needs to be done.



As I understand your view, you are only ‘agreeing’ with the “passive” portion but not my “of God” portion as I understand this to mean that God was actually involved in such cases. You instead think God is completely removed in such cases and natural acts, even in self-acting, even as it is required, self-directing way and/or the devil is in full control and is administering the judgement. I, on the other hand, have yet to see a Biblical/SOP case where the devil has been given this green light, even, a particularly in, the Destruction of Jerusalem, and only see that this will be the case in the 7th and Final Plague.



I see this as a circular argument, especially as (1) it is entirely based on your view, (which, in my view is reversedly making ‘the OT God act like the incarnate Jesus’ (which is chronologically not possible), instead of the logical vice versa, and (2) it is being stated here as the first reasons instead of a second one. I.e., logic must be based upon/flow out of concrete facts.



This is not a realistic nor logical conclusion. Had Jesus just walked into the Temple and simply looked at these thieves and robbers and they and then suddenly scurriedly bolted out of the Temple leaving most, if not all of their commodities behind, or even taking them with them, then that would have been a passive act or Jesus. (Indeed “passive” as He was physically present but had just looked at them). But the account didn’t end with Jesus just looking at them as seen in DA 157.4. That only caused a hushed silence. The Bible and SOP then clearly say that:

-divinity flash through the garb of humanity (DA 158.1a = a “stern and godlike demeanor” DA 589.1)
-a divine light illuminates His countenance (DA 158.1b)
-to the sellers of doves He (first) tells them to “take these things hence” (DA 158.1c cf. John 2:16)
-He then, effectively menacingly, and as a “flaming sword”, raises his scourge of cords (DA 158.2)
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table
-it is then, after these physical acts that “Officers of the temple, speculating priests, brokers and cattle traders, with their sheep and oxen, rush from the place, with the one thought of escaping from the condemnation of His presence. {DA 158.2}”

To say that Jesus did not use force here is not exegetically realistic. It was a degree of force, and proportional/reasonable force at that, but by incontrovertible definition, force non the less. To say the contrary is like saying that a police officer does not use force at all to do a traffic stop. By merely flicking on his lights, a first stage/degree of law enforcing force is used. If that is being resisted by the law violator, then that forces is increased namely to a siren blasting, a parallel/side visible indication, a police chase, a spin out, a nail carpet, shooting out the tires, and so on. In fact the first stage of force to comply to the law is, if that was the case, to immediately slow down to the speed limit particularly when passing a police office who is engaged in speeding control. Furthermore, more pertinently, complete non-force with the effectuation of a judgement here, would that law offender pulling over on their own at the mere noticing of a police car and then convincing the police officer to write them a ticket becasuse they had exceeded the speeding limit, even 10 miles before.

Similarly, in the case of Christ, the inceptive stage of force was when He stepped into the Temple and began to glare at them. As they immediately knew something was wrong, they should have immediately complied with what God’s Law/principle actually was for this circumstance, which they fully knew of. Instead subsequent degrees of force came to be used as listed above with:

-divinity flashing through the garb of humanity (stern and godlike) = revealing that Jesus was a Divine “Law Enforcer” here and means to end this violation of the Law.
-a divine light illuminates His countenance = Jesus was flashing His “pull over lights”
-Orders to “take these things hence” = visible/audible “command/indication to comply”
-A raised his scourge of cords = Christ menacingly “chasing them out”
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table = Christ physically removing/ending the elements that made the resistance “possible or justified”
-then the object of this Law Enforcing intervention was begun to be realized with the violators having been “neutralized”

Second Clearing/Cleansing
The second clearing cleansing (Matt 21:12, 13; Mar 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; DA 589.1-591.1) similarly also involved all of the degrees of force as in the first one, including physical overturnings (Matt 21:12b/Mark 11:15b which EGW does not mention in her account DA (590.4-591.1)).



You are here, in context, (manifestly) trying to imply that you responded to my mention of Christ’s Clearing of the Temple out of my listing of 7 others from this list when the truth/facts actually are, as transparently seen in Post #133064 that my “catch your attention” allusion was referring to your singling out of my “-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);” point. How could I “should have” expected something that you had never discussed in detail or even mentioned in support of your view before??? The facts clearly show that you just ‘switched topic’ here, and that to make your, factually speaking, spurious (i.e., “plausible but false” objecting and impeaching point.

Furthermore, though you may be familiar with that single incident out of that listing that does not justify only addressing that one and not the other. Indeed you should have addressed that one, but not leave the other unaddressed. Especially as you then claim/insist that you have the correct view based upon (a supposed) 1 out of 7 correctness. That is mathematically (i.e., scientifically), and (thus) logically, not realistic.

(Also when you make a reply to a post click the reply button from that post itself and not the last post in that thread as this helps to easily back track back to that post when verifying what you were responding to.)



Ironically enough, for either ones of these to fit within your ‘natural (third-party) self-acting’ view Jesus would have to not have even condemningly looked at these offenders but even just walk into the Temple mid his own business and these offenders would still have bolted out overturning their own tables and leaving being their money (= causing damage to themselves). Clearly that is not the case. Thus this was a direct judgement of Jesus/God and thus emulates the similar acts of intervening judgement of God found throughout the Bible, pointedly with the OT God that Jesus was here perfectly emulating, especially by using the reasonable force needed to fully effectuate that judgement and its desired outcome. The money remaining behind was indeed rightfully to be made available from those who had been defrauded.



Transparently substantiated that conclusion(?)/claim.



The problem with the enjoined full extent/implication of “your point” (= your view of this emulating) is that it does not, even manifestly, must not, involve all of the exegetically actual/realistic elements in Christ actions. E.g.:

-As shown above, a degree of force was used in the clearing of the Temple, indeed with Christ himself being the one who actively administered that Law Enforcing force.
-Jesus greatly wished to interveningly bring about Hell Fire to end the GC Luke 12:49-50 in the light of all of the pervasive abuses taking place (12:1-48).
-Jesus said that God would be the one to cause the destruction event of Jerusalem (Matt 22:7)
-Like the OT God (Isa 6:9-13) Christ veiled the things that would have facilitated the averting of Jerusalem’s physical destruction, only providing the explanatory keys to His disciples. (Matt 13:10-17) All that everyone else heard was a story which they had to then, at their own peril precisely figure out what actual reality they were conveying. Clearly most of these people never came to accurately decipher and understand these veiled sayings.
-Jesus defaultly acted to rouse the hatred of Jewish leaders, e.g., in the first temple cleansing (DA 167.2) and in His synagogue sermon (DA 237.3ff). Your claim of ‘only later resorting to this is both Biblically unsubstantiated, and also opposing your view since in your view, God is not supposed to do anything to contribute to the demise of those who oppose him. SO Jesus was suppose to continue to speak “plainly” to them vs. this “veiled” approach and they were to then knowingly reject what he was teaching and not believe in Him. In fact, as John 16:25-31 shows that Christ figurative/veiled speaking even caused his own disciples to doubt him.
-etc.



You excuses here just prove that this was indeed a pointedly fair comment. First of all I am referring to outrightly ignored/left out comments. Indeed I consider a ‘I don’t understand this as an answer vs. not mentioning nothing at all. And if I consider that non-understanding to be substantively valid, i.e., not a substantively void ‘too long a sentence’ quibble (?!?) I make the appropriate editing/restating correction.

I could easily list the litany of things you have outrightly ignored, especially when it involved Biblical exegesis. Also making an answer and not taking into consideration or opposingly counter all the points that had substantiated my point is considered as this selective ignoring. These standing facts do not disappear just because you did not address or mention them in your response.

And the “too long a response” excuse does not nullify the fact that you still did not respond to those points. Indeed by responding to something vs. a distinct other, you are just showing that you are using selectiveness in your responses. It is also clear that you are only responding to what you think you have an answer to. However this obviously does not make what you chose not to answer not be true.



As it can easily be when I do restate those points, you just ignore them again, or as seen in the “War in Heaven” issue, you selectively only address what you think you have an answer to and ignore the other points that you manifestly cannot counter



That, mainly format, editing should remove your ‘grammatical non-sense’ objection. And since “grammar” was your objection here, that obviously does not affect the “substance” presented. So you could have engaged that substance.



The non-glib fact that, as the Bible clearly teaches, God acts to destroy the wicked when they reach a certain point of sinfulness, even favoring, tangibly aiding Israel in wars, shows that He loves those who a faithful to Him more than those who reject him and indeed tangibly acts upon, and towards to effectuating of, those emotions. (E.g., Jacob vs. Esau - Mal 1:1-5). God’s love for people is not stoically indifferent to their response. I.e., e.g., He indeed does not bless those who don’t return that love by obey Him and His Law (e.g., Exod 20:5, 6; Deut 7:9, 10 (Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4); John 14:15; 21; 15:10)



As already stated, the Bible throughout approvingly speaks of having a “healthy fear of God”. Yet this is only a beginning and not to be the motivation throughout. In fact that fear is distinct from the desired loving and faith relationship that should normatively ensue. E.g., the Ninevites became fearful of God and repented, however there is no indication that they went on to pursue/deepen a relationship with the God of Israel, i.e., becoming a satellite Jewish Tribe/Nation. They only had a “fear of punishment” (Jon 3:9) but not a ‘relationship-building “love of God”.’

Indeed this fear that God seeks to instill through such acts of judgements upon a selected most deserved party is to serve to abruptly end a sinful course that is developing and not to be the basis for a relationship. Indeed just like threatening someone to enter into a relationship with you at the threat of death is not a relationship based on/involving love.

God’s acts of judgement are thus to immediately end a threatening course and not even to begin a relationship. The person outside of his will is however free to use this instilled fear try to get to know this God better, or not. That fully offset the fact that God’s miracle can and do foster belief and faith, but again, only if the witnessing party wants this to be a result.

That is what your SOP quotes (MS 20, 1897 & DA 480) are also saying and indeed my view was not what you had supposed, despite the many times that I have already stated so. (E.g., as shown below, you won’t allow for my distinction between ‘judgement effectuation force’ vs. ‘belief compelling force’.)



(A) God e.g., using various appropriate elements to effectuate a judgement, especially as these are inherently object lessons, as any sin should result in the immediate Hell Fire destruction of anyone, is not evil. Even if simply for that object lesson reason as it serves to preserve the life of literally billions of other people. E.g., who knows for crucially how long the striking and widely “noteworthy” Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, served to prevent their Capital sins from spreading and being engaged in. Also, if not for that judgement, one would see many more cases, as widely seen today, of people professing to be Christian while practising the abominable lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. And as that sin is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Bible, even if, as some want to spuriously suppose, that was not a sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, it still served as a deterrent for that Biblically condemned practice.

(B) What is described in GC 35-37 is (1) a natural end result which must be as “organically” natural as smoking causing lung cancer (and not “disobedience” resulting in a snake attacking you. E.g., Why didn’t the venomous scorpions also attach Israel??); and (2) a judgement where Satan has full and unrestricted/unlimited control. Those two are natural and manufactured “evil”. God’s bringing about a death sentence, however, he deems is appropriate, is not evil. In fact, not doing so, in the light of the adverse effect that this would then have/result in (e.g., persisted and further advanced sin), makes this a justified and righteous act. Indeed just like a police officer stopping a murderous act in progress using any pertinently necessary deadly force is not the “evil” of murder.



As already explained above, (and as I had gone on to illustrate), you indeed misconstrued what I had said and meant. Succinctly summarized: God’s effectuating of death, and that even as a most striking object lesson is not “evil” or “murder”. God’s not intervening to timely, thoroughly and efficiently (i.e., produce the Law Abiding effect) effectuate this judgment would be evil. Appropriately responding to that ‘GC circumstance’ is not.



(1) The fact that God indeed did not want war but peace, (though this was not his “choice” as if it had been, it would have been the case as nothing could have prevented him from making it so).

(2) As quote from the SOP on my blog, which you, for lack of a more comprehensible term, “ignored”, it is clear that it was God who decided that a war was to be the way to resolve the conflict:



Furthermore it is only after that war stipulation that:



The fact that you would just ignore such SOP direct revelation statements, that you supposedly had read since your first visit of my blog post, was most mind-boggling to me. Indeed you did not even dare mention them, as if that made them fade into insignificance.



You view-biased, “maxim points” here also do not hold up to actual Biblical evidence.

Inspired Bible Writers like Moses, praising God, explicitly said, after God had worked to force the Egyptian armies to chase after Israel and then pursue them in the Red Sea (Exod 14:3&5-7 vs. 4&8; cf. vs. 17*): “God is a Warrior/Man of War” (Exod 15:3; cf. vs. 1, 2, 4ff)

(Indeed this will be part of the song that will be sung in the end by the 144,000 ad Great Multitude, based upon their similar experience (Rev 15:2, 3) And Hint- the Sea of Glass standing can occur, as reveal here, before the 7 last Plagues are poured out.

[And as this will be an understood aspect of the experience of the Triumphant, Remnant Generation, it thus correspondingly entails that a view that claims that ‘God does not/cannot/must not/will not use military means/force to defend His Righteous People’, as seen in how you view Israel’s OT wars (all “just wars”), will come to place its holder on the wrong side of Prophetic Fulfillment, even to the point of siding with those who are warring against God’s People. This discussion is just a microcosm of the result of that unbiblical stance.]

*As done before, I have restated that prior exegetical point that I had made, which you did not pointedly address. So instead of ignoring it again, do address it, because whether or not I ‘beg’ you to answer it, as manifestly needs to be the case in a discussion with you, it has still been stated and you can just as easily address it head on as you address whatever you selectively do preferentially choose to address.



As God explicitly said many times, as I have also cited before: ‘to effectuate judgement on peoples who by then had passed an unacceptable limit of sinfulness. And at the same time, for Israel to occupy this then vacated/depopulated land, indeed instead of leaving it for other surrounding and also evil nations, (who should similarly have been wiped out and dispossessed), to gain this land. (See e.g., Deut 20:10-18).’ That is all why Israel was made to go into Egypt for 400 years (Gen 15:13, 16).



What difference is that suppose to make?? In fact when they did not have the weapons or force to stand against their enemies, God used supernatural forces and event do defeat these enemies for Israel. E.g., Egyptian Army and the Read Sea, Jericho’s Walls, the 185,000 Assyrians, etc.,) Israel could a=only make lawful use of these weapons of war upon God’s explicit command/permission.

I see that God permitted natural warfare and weaponry most the time so as to not cause people to believe in Him merely to avert such sure defeat in war and thus, effectively, lead to a spurious, self-serving “relationship”. At best it should have serve to prevent Israel’s enemies from ever confronting Israel in war, however if these foreign people persisted in their sins, God used Israel to effectuate deserved judgement on them. Particularly in relation to the territorial conquest of Canaan.



Yes, in the sense that his is what he told them to tangibly do. No, in the sense that this was an underserved/unjust action as the Biblical evidence clearly testify against. God used the self-established and developed fact that these foreign nation had reached a point where they were beyond salvageability, indeed probably violating all healthful and human, natural laws, to provide a land for his people. If is “will” had defaultly been dispossession, he would have begun to do so 430 years before when he called Abraham.



As I see it, that point is completely besides the issue here. The loss of Israeli life is not at issue here, but the loss of the people fought against. Israel’s victories also, and in my view always involved God’s supernatural power. (E.g., Exod 17:8-16; the conquest of Canaan) Indeed they could easily lose a war to even an inferior enemy (as with Ai). Their being faithful to God was what allowed to be victorious, hence God was in a sense actively fighting for them.

Yes, thank you, you did respond to all except the following one:


Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.


Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.


As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.


Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed. And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.


Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.


Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.


The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission. There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says:

“And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.”

“And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. Similarly, fire flashed from heaven in response to Elijah’s prayers to burn alive the two different bands of fifty. Do you believe Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to burn them alive? So far you have not answered this question plainly. Please do so.


Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point. Do not make the mistake of basing your idea on one passage. Also, “needs to know” is not the same thing as “everything there is to know”.

I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.

Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and to permit His enemies to inflict punishment upon the Jews in 70 AD. Said punishment was inflicted because Jesus permitted it. He also worked to prevent His enemies from exceeding the limits He imposed on them. In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome.

Yep.

I guess, actually not a guess, but more of a statement, I see no need, or otherwise, no necessity, or implied implication, to have a dozen, or so, but not exact, as the word dozen is a round about number, but not to be confused with a baker's dozen, though which term may not be familiar with most people of today's age, not saying their chronological age, but age of modernization, though it may be a step back rather than a step forward, parenthetical phrases, or parts of sentences, included, or embedded, or otherwise to the point of being lost, within one another when one can say it with few, or at least, fewer, words.

Cute. (Although perhaps "Y." would have worked.)

Agreed.

I haven't put it this way, nor would I, as this seems ambiguous.

The final judgment involves direct actions on the part of God to the point of having all be aware of the issues involved in the Great Controversy, especially in their own lives. This is necessary that they may render judgment. Every knee will bow, voluntarily, and every tongue confess, voluntarily, acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He (and God, or the Godhead) have been just/fair/merciful/gracious/etc. in all of their dealings throughout the Great Controversy.

Regarding judgments during this life, one could perhaps say that some aspect of sin has been allowed to run its course, but not that sin, in general, has been allowed to run its course.



Again, this isn't a phrase I have used, nor a concept I have articulated (that sin is allowed to run its course).



This isn't very clear, but I think what you're wanting to say is that God intervenes in order to prevent something worse to occur. If that's the point, I have no qualms with this, provide that God's intervention is understood along the lines of that explained in GC 35-37.



He could just remove His protection from the thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which He protects us.



I don't think any have.



Examples suggested include:

1.Saul's death.
2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites.
3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.
4.Job's sufferings.
5.The destruction of Jerusalem.
6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.
7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.

Every one of these in the SOP was explained along the lines of what I have been asserting. None of these involves God's taking direct action to cause the thing to occur, nor His using His own angels to bring out the action described.



I don't have time to repeat all of these, but here are a few.





The first sentence in particular echoes the point I've been making. We do not realize the countless dangers which surround us, from which we are protected. When God's protection is removed, that may be perceived as God's taking direct action to cause the given thing.



(More later)