The following is from a web site cited at the end. I'm curious if those who read this agree with this explanation:

The answer is that God himself is under attack, and over the most important issues—his nature and character. He is accused of being a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator—uncaring, unloving, untruthful. In allowing freedom, he is then charged with causing all that has gone wrong.

In order to answer, God has to allow freedom—freedom to experience the consequences of choices, freedom to see where sin and evil lead, freedom to see where suffering really comes from. God did not create a suffering world—it is the result of the work of the Enemy. And God temporarily permits this to continue so that all can see, and experience, and understand. Not just to vindicate himself, but to show what really happens when free beings make evil choices. So that the whole universe will see and know and decide—for truth and right. In this suffering is inevitable, and God, because of his granting of choice, cannot end it until the demonstration is over.

http://www.pineknoll.org/jg/39-jonathan-...em-of-suffering

Yes. I would say that I agree with this. I think it sums up the Great Controversy rather well. IOWs ... God has His hands tied and is not really able to interfere with the results of sin. Therefore ... when you pray to God for blessings .... He is really not able to answer them. The blessing will come in Heaven. But if He gave them to us now ... Satan would charge that we are Christians ONLY because we can 'get' things from God.

I should point out that He is able to inspire others to be 'His extremities'. He uses other Christians to bless us. When we are His ... we will go about doing good. But it is our choice.

Also ... we can bless ourselves. We can answer our own prayers. But, God has His hands tied like the post indicates.

Tom, what you posted makes it seem like God is not involved in the outcome of the GC. But God is anything but hands-off. He is actively and aggressively involved in the outcome of the GC. The Flood, Sodom, the Egyptian plagues, the stoning of the guy caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath, the demise of Nadab and Abihu, and the death of Korah and his comrades.

Such demonstrations of love and justice were necessary to understand the truth about mercy and justice.

How so? What I posted speaks to God's character being under attack. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned in regards to any of the things you mentioned. Your mentioning them looks to be completely off topic.

Coming back to the topic, how do you seem any implication that the fact that God's character is under attack means He is not involved in the GC?

The quote you posted portrays God being accused of being "a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator — uncaring, unloving, untruthful." And that, in allowing freedom, He is being "charged with causing all that has gone wrong."

The author goes on to explain that it is Satan, not God, who causes the suffering sinners experience when they sin. God simply stands back and permits it. "God did not create a suffering world — it is the result of the work of the Enemy. And God temporarily permits this to continue so that all can see, and experience, and understand."

I am not saying the fact God's character is under attack implies is He not involved in the GC. What I said is the author portrays God standing back, hands-off, watching the GC unfold. But the opposite is true. God is very much hands-on. He is actively involved in the outcome of the GC. He is not standing back watching Satan decide how the GC will unfold.

It was God, not natural law or Satan, that caused the Flood, that rained down fire on Sodom, that ransacked Egypt with ten plagues, that gave the order to stone to death the guy caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath, that killed Nadab and Abihu with fire, and that orchestrated the demise of Korah and his comrades.

Do you disagree with this? Here are the statements one by one:
1.God did not create a suffering world.
2.It is the result of the work of the Enemy.
3.God temporarily permits this to continue so that all can see, and experience, and understand.

Do you disagree with 1, 2, or 3?



No He doesn't. There's nothing in what I quoted that suggests this. If you think there is, please quote something, and point out where the author is saying or implying that God is "hands-off".



Of course He's involved. The cross proves this.



Right. He is actively engaged in Christ to fight battle against Satan. The GC is a war of ideas. Through Christ, God presents the truth.



You have no reason to bring this up. You have not the slightest clue what the author's ideas are on these points. The author has said nothing about this.

You're off base.

Please stick to what was quoted.

No.


So is the war in Iraq. Such wars involve combat, destruction of property, catastrophe, and loss of limb and life.


He implied it. The quote you posted portrays God being accused of being "a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator — uncaring, unloving, untruthful." And that, in allowing freedom, He is being "charged with causing all that has gone wrong."

What does he have in mind here? Why happened that gave rise to the charge God is a "punitive" dictator? What happened that resembles punishment? What has gone wrong that they are accusing God of causing?

The implication here is that you see these wars as similar. Is this how you really feel? The GC is like the war in Iraq? I see it as an entirely different thing.



No he didn't. You have no idea what the author's position is on these subjects. None at all. You're speaking out of school here.



The author's statement is very similar to this one.

The quote you posted portrays God being accused of being "a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator — uncaring, unloving, untruthful." And that, in allowing freedom, He is being "charged with causing all that has gone wrong."

What does he have in mind here? Examples?

Why happened that gave rise to the charge God is a "punitive" dictator? Examples?

What happened that resembles punishment? Examples?

What has "gone wrong" that they are accusing God of causing? Examples?

Without examples the author is just as guilty as the people he is writing about - making unsupported claims.

I pointed out what the author wrote is very similar to what Ellen White wrote. Is she guilty of unsupported claims as well? If not, how is what she wrote different than what the author wrote?

If you want to know more about what the author has in mind, why don't you just read the article?