1)You refuse to understand that God's withdrawal is not arbitrary imposition of punishment. God cannot protect those that refuse Him.

2)You refuse to understand that the people of Israel very soon after leaving Egypt rejected God as their leader and took to using their own works to gain the promised land. God did not abandon them but gave the people laws where would minimize the damage of their choices. The people took up the sword, something they NEVER were required to do.

The withdraw and permit principle of punishment requires Jesus doing something that results in sinners suffering and dying. Jesus is responsible. Otherwise it wouldn't happen. Breaking the Sabbath, for example, does not naturally result in the long list of terrible things enumerated in the passage above. There is nothing about doing unnecessary work on the Sabbath that causes nature to freak out.

Sabbath breaking does not cause earthquakes, tornadoes, or flooding. Jesus either causes it Himself, or He commands holy angels to do it, or He permits evil angels to do it. It is punishment - not cause and effect. Your favorite way is not cause and effect. Jesus must consciously choose to withdraw His restraining hand and deliberately permit suffering, affliction, and death. He is responsible - not sin.

You have refused to publicly agree that people who willfully withdraw and deliberately permit suffering, affliction, and death are guilty of first degree murder. And yet you believe Jesus does so with impunity. For example:

1. You believe Jesus withdrew and permitted snakes to kill sinners. However, you also believe if anyone else did the same thing they would be guilty of first degree murder.

2. You believe Jesus commanded holy men of God to kill criminals and combatants. However, you also believe if anyone else did the same thing they would be guilty of first degree murder.

3. You believe Jesus permitted evil men and evil angels to kill sinners. However, you also believe if anyone else did the same thing they would be guilty of first degree murder.

In all three cases it is Jesus, not sin, who is responsible for suffering, affliction, and death. It is not cause and effect.

1)You refuse to understand that God's withdrawal is not arbitrary imposition of punishment. God cannot protect those that refuse Him.

2)You refuse to understand that the people of Israel very soon after leaving Egypt rejected God as their leader and took to using their own works to gain the promised land. God did not abandon them but gave the people laws where would minimize the damage of their choices. The people took up the sword, something they NEVER were required to do. You continue to refuse to understand that God NEVER wanted divorce, but gave laws to minimize the damage. These rules and commands are not God's ways, but man's. Man took up the sword, God minimized the damage.

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, to not resist evil. Violence, even in self-defense is not God's way. Jesus did not say, take up your sword, and follow me.

M: Jesus commanded holy men to kill criminals and combatants.

A: This is NOT God's perfect will. It is His permissive will, just as that laws of divorce were His permissive will. God's permissive will, if continued to be followed will not save.

You agree with me that Jesus did things in the OT He didn't do in the NT (while here in the flesh). Ellen White's comment about Jesus in the NT does not undermine what she wrote about Jesus in the OT. "The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New." {DA 799.2}

Murder is an act of war against God's righteousness. It is an act of taking the prerogatives of God into their own hands. It takes the complete separation from God's Spirit to commit murder, so in rejecting the Holy Spirit's warning and rebuke there is a rebellion against God involved.

On the other hand the act of killing someone for righteouseness sake is an act of love and self preservation, empowered by God, as proven in many biblical cases and history in general.

The problem is, if you are not hearing the record under the power of the Spirit of God, then self takes over and they take the righteous character of God and view Him from a fallen perspective, attributing a fallen character to Him. They turn His righteousness into a terror, or they take away His power in their views.

But "those who have an ear" God empowers to "Let them hear" and they can see through His perspective and they see the mercy in His holding the four winds.

In other words, Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned, and things written by God do not appear to fit with the preconceived notions of most receivers ideas on the subject, it is their perception that is altered and making the words to mean something else.

If God's Spirit does not attend the words, there is no power and confusion reigns. Also when God does intend for the self willed to hear the subject, the devil interveigns and sows seads of doubt and confusion. They hear the issue from the side of the devil and begin arguing for him, thus becoming the devils advocate. Most of us like the Apostles will be found guilty of that, because it is a part of the Christian learning experience if we are sincere and learn from our mistakes through the Holy Spirit. Very few have nothing to repent of in our learning of truth.

Back to the point; Many argue against the ministry of Samson having anything to do with righteousness but when he was born it was miracle and an angel heralded his birth. When Samson slew the 1000 men with the fresh jawbone of an ass the HOLY SPIRIT empowered him to do so. Miracles happened to prove God was on Samsons side, and water flowed out of the bone. They made him judge over Israel for 30 years before he was with Delilah, and the people made the emblem of the donky jaw bone their emblem of power. Tell me was God not behind the man with a bone being empowered to kill the 1000 men who intended on killing Samson? Does the bible record this incorrectly?

Some influences are so insideus that God commanded childred to die, and to even kill the cattle of the wicked because of the intended use goes even deeper into the hatred of God against sin.

Is it wicked for God to hate? You who think God does not have the right to execute justice yet remain unsullied are in effect saying God cannot hate. Is that true? Can a righteous God hate? The answer is yes but you would make an argument to prove it is no.

Because of the fallen perspective that we are born in, being on the fallen side of reality, stuck in this prison house of mortality, we tend to make excuses for sin, and make God to be no more righteous than a mere mortal. On God's side of the mirror there is no excuse for sin. Jesus leads us to find righteousness in the words He gave in fearful majesty, as much as He wants us to see His majesty that makes the mountains shiver. In fact our whole walk of faith is to prepare us to stand before fearful majesty, so why would anyone argue against seeing God for His wonderfully merciful yet fearfully righteous character? Much of the power of the faith of the children of God is in knowing they are standing in the righteous presence of God in the sanctuary, through the body of Christ. They see the fear that should be experienced by everyone coming in repentance and they are forgiven. Power.

Everyone with an earthly mentality sees this issue from the mindset of sympathy for the devil, using his arguments against the righteousness of God, and they quibble and murmer against the meanings of the words God gave. It is because of the clouded minset of men on the righteousness of God that they misrepresent God's Character in this way.

In going into Canaan, the people were to march. In taking Jericho, the people were to march.