We've got a post going about the flood and such elsewhere. I think it's clear from science, the SOP, and Scripture that the water came from beneath the earth. Certainly it was under great pressure, as how else could it have exploded up into the atmosphere? I think it's possible to see God's actions here as being similar in principle to His actions in other places, such as Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I'm mentioning this to you Thomas, because I can't remember if you took part of that other thread. Mark asked this topic not be discussed outside of that thread, so I've chosen to abide by his wishes.

No, I dont think I participated in that thread(possible exception of a post or two). You know, yours and Mikes threads do tend to drag on almost ad infinitum...

TE: Job assumed God was responsible because he was ignorant of Satan.

MM: Please consider the following insights:

ML 316
Satan was permitted to tempt the too-confident Peter, as he had been permitted to tempt Job; but when that work was done he had to retire. Had Satan been suffered to have his way, there would have been no hope for Peter. He would have made complete shipwreck of faith. But the enemy dare not go one hairbreadth beyond his appointed sphere. There is no power in the whole satanic force that can disable the soul that trusts, in simple confidence, in the wisdom that comes from God. {ML 316.3}

3BC 1140
It is very natural for human beings to think that great calamities are a sure index of great crimes and enormous sins; but men often make a mistake in thus measuring character. We are not living in the time of retributive judgment. Good and evil are mingled, and calamities come upon all. Sometimes men do pass the boundary line beyond God's protecting care, and then Satan exercises his power upon them, and God does not interpose. Job was sorely afflicted, and his friends sought to make him acknowledge that his suffering was the result of sin, and cause him to feel under condemnation. They represented his case as that of a great sinner; but the Lord rebuked them for their judgment of His faithful servant (MS 56, 1894). {3BC 1140.5}

There is wickedness in our world, but all the suffering is not the result of a perverted course of life. Job is brought distinctly before us as a man whom the Lord allowed Satan to afflict. The enemy stripped him of all he possessed; his family ties were broken; his children were taken from him. For a time his body was covered with loathsome sores, and he suffered greatly. His friends came to comfort him, but they tried to make him see that he was responsible, by his sinful course, for his afflictions. But he defended himself, and denied the charge, declaring, Miserable comforters are ye all. By seeking to make him guilty before God, and deserving of His punishment, they brought a grievous test upon him, and represented God in a false light; but Job did not swerve from his loyalty, and God rewarded His faithful servant (MS 22, 1898). {3BC 1140.6}

MM: 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: This looks like you are answering my question the way I suggested you would, which is that there is nothing different between good and evil, except the identity of the one performing the act. If this is not really what you think, please clarify.

MM: Sinning is evil. God cannot sin. Commanding holy angels to destroy sinners is not evil. The circumstances that force God to command or permit destruction are evil.

…………………

MM: The fact evil angels delight in destroying sinners, when God gives them permission, is evil. To answer your question - that is what makes the difference. Holy angels do not delight in the death and destruction of sinners. True, they rejoice in the results, that is, they praise God for doing the right thing, but they take no pleasure in destroying sinners.

TE: Ok, this is going a bit further than just identity. Here you seem to be saying that what makes the difference is not the act being committed, but the attitude of the one performing the act. Although you aren't consistent with this, because you stated in the course of Job that you did not think the evil angels were guilty of sin, which here they would have been because of their delight in destroying sinners.

MM: I am referring specifically to God commanding or permitting destruction. The attitude of holy angels is holy, and the results are equally holy. The attitude of evil angels is evil, but not the results God permitted.

……………………

MM: Tom, what is about this description that makes you insist evil angels will pour out the seven last plagues?

TE: In reading Scripture, a good idea is to consider all of Scripture, not just one text or passage. The Scriptures make clear what God's character is (He is just like Jesus Christ), and we have many examples of Scripture presenting God as doing that which he permits. We know this is dealing with what God permits both by understanding His character, and by the things revealed from the Spirit of Prophecy.

MM: The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. What is symbolic about it?

GC 598, 599
The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}

……………………..

MM: Since God portrays Himself as doing the very things He commands or permits it is clear that is how God views it. I agree with God. I do not pretend to be able explain why or how, but I believe what God says about Himself.

TE: You should also believe what He says about Satan. God presents Himself as doing that which He permits because He is gracious and humble. Those who know Him understand His character. What God does can be distinguished from what God allows by knowing His character.

MM: Again, the language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. We give God credit for not allowing evil angels to trouble us. We should also give Him credit when He permits it.

………………………

TE: If God's will were always followed, the world would be at perfect peace; men would live as Christ did.

MM: True. But they don’t, they choose to sin, which creates circumstances that force God to command or permit destruction.

TE: Satan is the author of sin and all its results. He leads men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.

MM: There are times when God uses disease to punish sinners. Not all diseases are the result of unrestrained natural causes. For example, God punished Miriam with leprosy. Of course, who can forget the plagues of Egypt? And, God will use disease to punish sinners during the seven last plagues:

Revelation
16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and [upon] them which worshipped his image.

TV: Historical records show that Roman soldiers hardly needed any external influence to destroy some foreign peoples temple or city. They where doing that for a living all around the empire where they had conquered and meet hard resistance.

MM: True. But does this disapprove what Sister White wrote about it?

GC 32, 33
Titus would willingly have put an end to the fearful scene, and thus have spared Jerusalem the full measure of her doom. He was filled with horror as he saw the bodies of the dead lying in heaps in the valleys. Like one entranced, he looked from the crest of Olivet upon the magnificent temple and gave command that not one stone of it be touched. Before attempting to gain possession of this stronghold, he made an earnest appeal to the Jewish leaders not to force him to defile the sacred place with blood. If they would come forth and fight in any other place, no Roman should violate the sanctity of the temple. Josephus himself, in a most eloquent appeal, entreated them to surrender, to save themselves, their city, and their place of worship. But his words were answered with bitter curses. Darts were hurled at him, their last human mediator, as he stood pleading with them. The Jews had rejected the entreaties of the Son of God, and now expostulation and entreaty only made them more determined to resist to the last. In vain were the efforts of Titus to save the temple; One greater than he had declared that not one stone was to be left upon another. {GC 32.3}

…………………………

MM: The Bible, not the Devil, clearly portrays God doing things He commands or permits. Who are we to question God’s perspective?

TV: And the examples of bible passages where the "doing" changes from one account to the next?

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

……………………………

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

MM: So, who do you think caused the Flood? God? Satan? Nature? Why didn't God prevent the Flood?

TV: You playing games with me? What in my above post is unclear? the "provide lots of water" part eh?

MM: No games. Just trying to understand your post. Wanted to make I didn’t assume something you do not believe. Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

Here's a point that deserves some study:

LDE 242
God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

How does what you all have been posting lately answer the question, does the end justify the means?

TV: Historical records show that Roman soldiers hardly needed any external influence to destroy some foreign peoples temple or city. They where doing that for a living all around the empire where they had conquered and meet hard resistance.

MM: True. But does this disapprove what Sister White wrote about it?

GC 32, 33
Titus would willingly have put an end to the fearful scene, and thus have spared Jerusalem the full measure of her doom. He was filled with horror as he saw the bodies of the dead lying in heaps in the valleys. Like one entranced, he looked from the crest of Olivet upon the magnificent temple and gave command that not one stone of it be touched. Before attempting to gain possession of this stronghold, he made an earnest appeal to the Jewish leaders not to force him to defile the sacred place with blood. If they would come forth and fight in any other place, no Roman should violate the sanctity of the temple. Josephus himself, in a most eloquent appeal, entreated them to surrender, to save themselves, their city, and their place of worship. But his words were answered with bitter curses. Darts were hurled at him, their last human mediator, as he stood pleading with them. The Jews had rejected the entreaties of the Son of God, and now expostulation and entreaty only made them more determined to resist to the last. In vain were the efforts of Titus to save the temple; One greater than he had declared that not one stone was to be left upon another. {GC 32.3}

-Not nessessarily any conflicts here. Though I wonder wether Jesus saying that the temple would be destroyed should be considered a declaration against it rather than a prophecy or prediction. i.e., would the temple still have stood there today if Jesus had not made that statement?
…………………………

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

-So is a portrayal to be taken as what acctually happened or as what people thought was acctually happening?
……………………………

MM: No games. Just trying to understand your post. Wanted to make I didn’t assume something you do not believe. Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

-Evil angles as the loyal servants of God just dont seem right to me. Just imagen the scene,

God sitting in heaven on His throne, declaring, 'Ive had it with those selfish and sinning humans. Lets wash the planet clean of them.' God then looking towards the half of his courtyard where all the evil angels who wherent on any mission at present where gathered, playing their favourite game, lynching the imp. 'Come here' God says to the leader of the deamons. 'I have a plan for you to perform for me. You see, Ive got to cleanse the earth from all of those sinner humans who spend all their time thinking up ways to mock me and destroy each other, and I want you to do it for me. I've got the plans right here...'. The deamon getting an ever widening cruel smile while the extent of this sceme unfolds before his eyes.
After fully explaining the extent and limitations of the mission, God dismisses the deamon.
The deamon called over to his kin, 'Ey guys, let loose the imp and prepear for a party. We've got us some humans to drown, yeeah.'

Now what is wrong with this picture? Any guesses?

DF: How does what you all have been posting lately answer the question, does the end justify the means?

MM: The way I see it, circumstances force God to cause, command, or commission destruction. It is the lesser of two evils. So, yes, in this specific case, the end does justify the means.