I have a confession to make. Earlier I made the assumption that God will give evil angels permission to pour out the seven last plagues. My bad. I based my assumption on the following quote:

GC 614
The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

I assumed this inspired insight meant that God is going to give evil angels permission to pour out the seven last plagues. But the Bible makes it clear that it is holy angels who will pour them out. Here is how the Bible describes it:

Revelation
15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.

I think it is safe to say that we all agree that the Bible always represents God as being responsible for causing, commanding, or commissioning the destruction of full-cup sinners. And rightly so. God is in control of managing the outcome of the GC. It is His sole responsibility to ensure that the evil angels do not exceed the limits and boundaries established and maintained by God.

Tom and Thomas, however, insist that the Bible portrays God as doing the deeds of the devil simply as a gesture of generosity, that God is willing to take the blame because He is humble and unassuming. But in reality, God is not to blame. The devil is. Jesus did not cause, command, or commission destruction during His earthly sojourn. And, based on this insight, Tom and Thomas wrongly conclude that God never has, nor ever will, cause destruction or the death of full-cup sinners.

I totally disagree. I believe the Bible. I take it at face value. I do not read into it ideas that contradict the obvious. When the Bible says God caused, commanded, or commissioned something to happen, I believe it. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me. I have no reason to doubt or interpret the Bible to serve my preconceived opinions.

In that specific sense, yes, but in a general sense, no.

In other words, generally speaking, the end doesn't justify the means.

Not quite. I have stated that God has in the past judged groups of people and will in the future judge people, and those people judged have meet death. Examples of this is the flood, the lower jordan valley, sertain things that happened during the exodus 40 years. What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively. When Pt. Smith shoots Iraqi warriors and is then himself killed in combat, that is not God. When janjaweed paramilitaries raid a southern Sudan village, killing all the men and raping all the women and children, that is not God. When Hitler ordered the gasing and shooting of 6 milion Jews and other groups he thought where lesser humans, that was not God.

All these later things are either planed and directed by satan or his minions, or simply the fruit of the free will of humans. God has at times judged people and will in the end judge everyone and Gods judgements are just. All this vanton violence that we can observe every day until suffering fatigue overtakes our capability of compassion, that is neither just nor caused or expressidly permitted by God. It all passes under the blanket permission that is known as human free will. And while God can interviene and protect those who call on Him, does not mean that the opposite is true that God gives individual permission to ever atrocity or sin commited on earth. This is what I believe about this subject.
On this ground I reject your statement about what you thought I believe Mike.

/Thomas

DF: In that specific sense, yes, but in a general sense, no. In other words, generally speaking, the end doesn't justify the means.

MM: Let me see if I understand your position. Please correct me if I have misunderstood it. You believe the end justifies the means when it involves God commanding holy angels to destroy full-cup sinners. But generally speaking this principle does not apply.

What I'm not clear on is what you mean by "general" sense. I assume you mean when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners. In other words, you mean the "end justifies the means" principle does not apply when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners.

If this is what you mean, and I'm not saying it is, but if this is true, what is the "end" and what is the 'means", and how are they different in cases involving God commanding holy angels to destroy full-cup sinners?

Again, in such cases, we both agree that the "means" is holy angels destroying sinners, and the "end" is the destruction of full-cup sinners.

TV: Not quite. I have stated that God has in the past judged groups of people and will in the future judge people, and those people judged have meet death. Examples of this is the flood, the lower jordan valley, sertain things that happened during the exodus 40 years. . . . God has at times judged people and will in the end judge everyone and Gods judgements are just.

MM: Thank you for clarifying how you and Tom differ on this topic. I had forgotten you posted these convictions in the past. I was operating under the assumptions that you and Tom were in perfect agreement. Sorry for the oversight.

……………………..

TV: What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively. When Pt. Smith shoots Iraqi warriors and is then himself killed in combat, that is not God. When janjaweed paramilitaries raid a southern Sudan village, killing all the men and raping all the women and children, that is not God. When Hitler ordered the gasing and shooting of 6 milion Jews and other groups he thought where lesser humans, that was not God.

MM: In this aspect I think you and Tom are also in disagreement. Again, my mistake. I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them. I think we all agree that God’s ultimate will is that no one is lost, that everyone is saved, but that He does not force us to choose one way or the other.

……………………….

TV: All these later things are either planed and directed by satan or his minions, or simply the fruit of the free will of humans. . . . All this vanton violence that we can observe every day until suffering fatigue overtakes our capability of compassion, that is neither just nor caused or expressidly permitted by God. It all passes under the blanket permission that is known as human free will.

MM: The idea that God has no say-so in the outcome of our choices is, to me, unsettling. True, He allows us to make our own choices, but I find it hard to believe that He has absolutely nothing to do with managing the consequences of our choices. For example, I cannot imagine God standing by and doing nothing the moment that rival gang member shot Joey.

I believe whether or not the bullet kills Joey is in the hands of God. How many times have we heard testimonies from people like Joey who gave their hearts to Jesus when they realized that God spared their lives, that He sent a holy angel to guide the bullet in a way that the results were “miraculously” nonfatal.

………………………..

TV: And while God can interviene and protect those who call on Him, does not mean that the opposite is true that God gives individual permission to ever atrocity or sin commited on earth. This is what I believe about this subject.

MM: As described above, I also believe God can and does intervene so that people like Joey will be motivated to call on Him. I suspect you also agree with this. But in order for this to be true, God cannot be as detached or uninvolved as you seem to believe.

If there are times, as you seem to believe, when things happen that God neither caused, commanded, nor commissioned, then I believe He runs the risk of being perceived as aloof, uncaring, and unmindful. It has to do with the "duty to act" principle.

TV: On this ground I reject your statement about what you thought I believe Mike.

MM: Hopefully I now better understand your position. Please correct me if anything I have posted here is off base. Thank you.

By general sense, I mean that the end doesn't justify the means in relation to, for example, what Jacob did to obtain the promised birthright.

Oh, okay. Now I see what you mean. Thanx for clarifying. What about when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners? Does the end (i.e., the destruction of sinners) justify the means (i.e., giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners)?

Give me an instance in the Bible where this happened.

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil....True, the results, from our perspective, look the same

This doesn't seem clear to me. When I asked "if good and evil look the same, what's the difference?" who did you think I was talking about? Us, of course, right? I'm concerned about our perspective. So if you say, "True, the results, from our perspective, look the same" that's saying they look the same, right? If not, what looks different?

You went on to say that good and evil will be contrasted in the end of time, during the time of the last plagues, which is fine and well to say, but that doesn't address my question, which is, if good and evil look the same, what's the difference?

You answered this by first saying that they don't look the same. Then you said they do. Then you said I chose to ignore your point. What point did I choose to ignore? (I'm certainly not voluntarily ignoring any point you're making).

No, if this is what you were thinking, you were right.