I know Tom that you had that in mind.

However, every time something is expressed, something is left out. That particular quote, while dealing with possible consequences, has missed telling us that God’s actions were the outworking of “his goodness”; and not just an effort of using the occasion to make a display of “his goodness”. In which case it would not have been his goodness at work, but it would have been “pride”.

The implication that it was a “lesser evil” must be guarded against. A “lesser evil” is “evil” and it has nothing to do with God’s “goodness”.

John,

If my horse breaks his leg irreparably, then I should let the animal continue living in agony because I don't love him if I kill him; on the contrary, I'm heartless, mercyless and cruel.

Rosangela: Tom,

The Bible says that a power called the abomination of desolation would destroy Jerusalem, so this explains that Mark 12 and Matt. 26 in fact refer to God´s permission, because pagan nations do not act under God’s, but under Satan’s, control. If Jerusalem had been destroyed by an earthquake, or like Sodom, then it could be argued that it was destroyed by God. Being, as it was, destroyed by a pagan nation, this could only be described as something permitted, not caused, by God.

Tom: You're reading into the quote. It just says God would destroy and burn the city. Even with your idea about the abomination of desolation, it still doesn't resolve the issue because God could have used the Romans to destroy the Jews. He could have still been the active agent.

The Spirit of Prophesy says what happened was that the Jews came under the control of Satan, who disguised his actions as being something God did. This is not the same thing you are saying, it doesn't seem to me.

Old Tom: It is possible that God would want Ahab to be deceived? Would His character allow this? Is the only reason we know the Ahab story is a parable because of Micaiah?

R: No, this is not possible, and the proof is that God presented to Ahab a parable through Micaiah in order to show him, as vividly as He could, the foolishness of trusting in false prophets.

Tom: Hmmm. My question was, is the only reason we know the Ahab stroy is a parable because of Micaiah, and you answer no, and the proof is Micaiah. Interesting answer.

How about if Micaiah wasn't involved? Then could we know the story was a parable?

Old Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct: the ends justify the means.

R: After you have convinced me that the fact that God let Satan live was not a bad thing, we will continue this discussion.

Tom: God had to let Satan live because the alternative would have been worse. An evil seed of doubt would have remained, questioning whether God was as Satan said He was. The only way God could answer the question as to whether Satan's accusations regarding His character and the principles of His government were correct or not, and if Satan was correct in suggesting that he had a better way, was to allow Satan to live and give him a chance to develop his way of doing things.

When all creation has seen the truth, then the Great Controversy will come to an end.

Tom,

Why did you repeat your post of yesterday?

Tom,
Your post of August 23, 2005 08:55 PM is the same as your post of August 24, 2005 11:30 AM. Or so it seems to me.