Of course you read into the Bible ideas which contradict the obvious. All of us read the Bible according to our preconceived ideas. How else could God communicate to us? You're no better than any of the rest of us on this point.

As an example of how you interpret inspired readings to serve your preconceived opinions, consider how you respond to the quote from EGW that God offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of repentance and submission. You write that "sin" doesn't mean "sin," that "pardon" doesn't mean "pardon"



One could hardly come upon a better example of doing the very thing you say you don't do than this.

A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits. So the idea that just because Scripture says God did something means He actively caused a certain thing to happen, as opposed to permitting the enemy to do something, is facile. Here are some examples:

a)Scripture says God sent fiery serpents to the Isrealites.
b)Scripture says God killed Saul.
c)Scripture says God caused David to number Israel.
d)Scripture says God sent His armies to destroy Jerusalem

I don't disagee with what Thomas wrote, either here or earlier in his post. He wrote that God judges certain people, such as with the Flood, or other examples, and that's certainly true. I agree with each example that Thomas gave.

It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood, for example, but I see this as a minor point compared to the bigger question, which has to do with God's character. Thomas is presenting a portrait of God's character with which I fully agree. In addition, I think Thomas is doing a fine job expressing the same concepts I've been trying to share.

It should be remember what, "The end justifies the means" means. I've quoted the following definition a couple of times:



In order to establish that the end justifies the means, it must be established that the means are of a quesitonable character. Otherwise the phrase is meaningless. Everyone agrees that the end justifies means which are right in and of themselves.

It is my contention that God never acts out of harmony with His character. To say this in three other ways:

a)He never acts contrary to His law.
b)He never acts differently than Jesus Christ acted during His earthly mininstry.
c)He never acts contrary to what 1 Cor. 13 says (i.e., the description of love is the description of God's character).

MM: 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)?

DF: Give me an instance in the Bible where this happened.

MM: Job is probably the most famous example. And the destruction of Jews in AD 70 is Tom's favorite one.

TE: 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?

MM: Tom, if I didn’t know better I could be tempted to think you are trying to make it appear as though I am contradicting myself.

The point that got ignored, or accidentally overlooked, is the one where I made a distinction between good and evil as it applies to people choosing to sin or not to sin and as it applies to God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy unpardonable sinners.

In cases involving people sinning or not sinning, during the time of trouble, good and evil do not look the same. I’m sure we can both agree on this point. I realize you believe this insight has absolutely nothing to do with the question you posted. But it should help you understand that I am not contradicting myself.

Now, in cases involving God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy full-cup sinners, I do not believe the results, namely the destruction of sinners in accordance with God’s will, can be labeled “evil”.

Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, Elijah, etc., did not perceive it as “evil” when God blessed them with victory, with the death and destruction of their enemies. On the contrary, they wrote beautiful songs and hymns to commemorate the slaughter.

……………………

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

MM: The quote you posted does not refer to the seven last plagues. I still believe God commands holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues. It appears that you disagree. If so, then how do you explain the following biblical insights:

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.

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

TE: A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

MM: That’s my point. Whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, the Bible always, not sometimes, portrays God as doing it. I choose to believe the Bible. You do not.

…………………..

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.

MM: I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them.

TE: It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood …

MM: I think he may also disagree regarding your ideas on God's passive and permissive will.
………………….

TE: Everyone agrees that the end justifies means which are right in and of themselves.

MM: That’s my point in cases involving God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy unpardonable sinners. The “means” is, given the extenuating circumstances, right. It’s the lesser of two evils, which makes it morally right.

Since when is Job an example of a full-cup sinner being destroyed by evil angels? He was destroyed by evil angels but hardly for being such a sinner that God lost hope of him...

As for Jerusalem 70 AD...

TE: A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

MM: That’s my point. Whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, the Bible always, not sometimes, portrays God as doing it. I choose to believe the Bible. You do not.

-That God is portrayed as doing something, does that mean that God is actually doing it? Satan is busy portraying God as doing a lot of less than flattering things. My point here is that image and reality is not nessessarily the same thing.
…………………..

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.

MM: I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them.

TE: It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood …

MM: I think he may also disagree regarding your ideas on God's passive and permissive will.

-Gods actions during the flood, somehow providing lots and lots of water... and also keeping a wooden boat from destruction.

1. You did contradict yourself. First you said that evil and good do not look the same and then you backed off from that.

You still haven't answered my question, which is if they look the same, then what's the difference? You point out that when God commands holy angels to destroy then this is not evil. Fine, then it's good. In what way does it differ from evil? Just the identity of the one doing or commanding the act makes the difference in your view. Isn't that correct?

2.What plagues do you think 14MR 3 are dealing with? There are other SOP statements which state the same thing as 14MR 3. (that the seven last plagues come about as a result of God's withdrawing His protection).

For example:

TE: A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

MM: That’s my point.

No, this was *my* point. The point is that sometime Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits, of which I gave several examples. So you cannot on the basis of a text which says, "God did such and such" know whether God actively did the thing or simply permitted the thing to happen. Yet you frequently do this very thing.

Whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, the Bible always, not sometimes, portrays God as doing it.

This isn't true either. For example, the Bible says in one place that God moved David to number Israel, and in another place says it was Satan.

I choose to believe the Bible. You do not.

This is a funny thing to say.

…………………..

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.

MM: I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them.

TE: It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood …

MM: I think he may also disagree regarding your ideas on God's passive and permissive will.

I'm not seeing that. It seems to me he's saying exactly the same thing I am. Of course Thomas knows God is all-powerful and nothing can happen except God permits it. But Thomas has been careful to point out that just because God allows something to happen, does not mean this is something God wanted to happen. He gave several examples to show this. This is exactly the same point I was making.
………………….

TE: Everyone agrees that the end justifies means which are right in and of themselves.

MM: That’s my point in cases involving God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy unpardonable sinners. The “means” is, given the extenuating circumstances, right. It’s the lesser of two evils, which makes it morally right.

The statement "the ends justifies the means" implies the means are not just, but the ends make them such. If it is your contention that the means are just in and of themselves, you shouldn't have made the statement, "the ends justifies the means."