You ask the wrong question. There should be no either/or here. It is a both/and situation instead.

For example, if you murder your neighbor's twin daughters in cold blood, and you live in Texas where they have the death penalty, the judge and jury may send you to capital punishment. Let's say it is by electric chair, and you refuse the governor's pardon, so you go to your death.

What killed you?

• Your murder of the twins, OR
• The Texas law, OR
• Your refusal of the governor's pardon, OR
• The judge, OR
• The jury, OR
• The executioner, OR
• The chair, OR
• The electricity, OR
• ?????

Which ONE SINGLE THING among those caused your death, APL, given this scenario? Your "sin?"

Now, did the judge force you to murder the twins? Obviously not. Did your refusal of the governor's pardon cause your death? In a way, yes. But did the chair have something to do with it? Of course. The executioner? Naturally.

Was the law "arbitrary" (e.g. unfair, designed only to catch you and not anyone else, or some other such capriciousness)? No. The law was there before you broke it, as was its penalty. You broke it, you get what you knew would happen.

Adam and Eve had both been duly told what would happen to them. It did. The law was just, not arbitrary. And the punishment, therefore, is also just, and not arbitrary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I just noticed this post of yours, kland. When I used the phrase "none other than" it had nothing to do with what quotes APL may have brought to the discussion. It would be like saying, "I got my information from none other than the president himself!" It is a way of emphasizing the value of the source. It would not mean that someone else had gotten bad information--it has little to do with anyone else at all, it would simply serve to build the credibility of one's own source. For example, click here to see a definition by Cambridge Dictionary for this idiom.

I apologize for not using a more easily-understood level of English. I certainly did not intend to criticize APL's quotes of Ellen White.

The trouble was that APL was using Mrs. White to support an idea of his that was handily contradicted by other statements from Mrs. White. This is why both Rosangela and I commented to APL about the contradiction between Ellen White and Ellen White that he appeared to be trying to set up.

No, I do not believe she contradicts herself. APL, however, will likely not soon accept some of her statements. He will need to be selective about which ones he reads if he wishes to maintain his present view.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But didn't APL get his information from "none other than" Ellen White? You haven't helped your situation any.

But the trouble was that you were using Mrs. White to support an idea of yours that was handily contradicted by other statements from Mrs. White.

How come you however, will likely not soon accept some of her statements. Most likely you will need to be selective about which ones you read if you wish to maintain your present view.

Blessings,

Perhaps you can pick one of the alleged statements he is using, just one, the best one, that you think is so contradictory, or that you think he is making so contradictory and let's discuss it.

This is not fully correct. Some of APL's statements have come from Mrs. White. He has chosen to quote some others in almost the same manner as Ellen White quotes to blend them into this discussion almost as if they had the same authority. For example, Ellen White quotes frequently have the curly braces around the reference. APL put those curly braces around "K. Straub" when quoting him. He has also quoted E. J. Waggoner using the three letters "EJW" which might seem almost the same as "EGW." You have to look carefully to catch the difference.



This is also not correct. I see no contradiction in Mrs. White's writings. I accept both A and B. APL only accepts A. He does not accept the balance of the statements, so to his point of view there is a contradiction. From my vantage point, no contradiction in her writings exists on this point.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I did this already. APL did not respond. Perhaps you will? APL is actually the one who presented the two opposing quotes in his post. I will copy it here from the other thread where it originally was posted.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ellen White gives a good description of how you interpret her writings, Green:



She speaks of a peculiar way of misconstruing "strong expressions of Scripture." Ellen White indicates such interpretation might well exposes the "bitterness and malignity which pertains to" oneself.

Is Ellen White stating a truth?

I think you said it, Johann. And evidence so pertains not just to this topic.

So the issue is not that he got his information from "none other than" Ellen White, but also from some other sources?

Ummmm.... You haven't helped your situation any.

This is strange. You just said it did contradict. Now you say it doesn't. "that was handily contradicted"

But maybe you are saying when APL uses Ellen White, it contradicts, but when you use similar statements, it doesn't contradict because....you say so.


Blessings,

I think the question is, how does God "punish", what is "punish" in terms of God? You make it contradictory by using your terms of punish.

And frankly, I expected a statement that sounded contradictory. It puzzles me of why you picked this one as being contradictory. It doesn't fit in with what you've been complaining about.

God considers it a great sin to encourage others to do evil.

The mind adapts itself to that on which it dwells.

How is that contradictory? Why would you consider it so? If the mind dwells on evil, it becomes evil, it encourages others to do evil. If we think God does evil, we will to. If we cause others to think God does evil, they by beholding will become changed and do evil.