What makes you think I am trying to say anything different?

If you are saying that God knew there were snakes, and He removed His protection on purpose, and He knew that people would get bitten as a result, and He knew the snake bites would hurt like the dickens, and He did it anyway knowing what would happen.... Then, yes, we are saying the same thing.

He knew the snake bites would hurt like the dickens, and He did it anyway.

Let's look at some familiar examples (I won't post the corresponding Scripture since they are easy to find):


God would punish, even drown, transgressors "for the good of His subjects and for their safety." Would punishment and drowning involve pain, maybe excruciating pain? Death? Possibly.

Does God effect the good and safety of His subjects through punishment and drowning of sinners? It looks like it.

Would Satan do the punishing and drowning himself, since it benefits God's children? I doubt it.

Does God do things that He does not allow us to do? Yes.


The Levites did this at the command of God through Moses. That's the plain reading of the text.

Did God merely remove His protection, and let the bloodthirsty Levites kill their friends and relatives, in contrast to His desire? If so, I don't think they would have been considered faithful and worthy of blessing.

Did Satan instigate this "painful" event, which was needed to avoid "irretrievable ruin"? Was Satan to be credited for the severity by which "the evil [was] put away"? I don't think so.


Was Elijah itching to kill people, just waiting for God's permission? I doubt it.

Did Satan drive Elijah to do this? No. Rather, he was "directed by the Lord" to kill Baal's prophets. And the purpose was to protect repentant Israel, and to open the way for a mighty spiritual reformation.


What we have here is a little different in character than our previous examples. This time it is clear that God merely withheld His blessings.

There was no dew or rain for over 3 years. Did that result in suffering or death? It surely did. So terrible were the results that it was considered a "curse of God."

You can't blame Satan for this, since he doesn't send rain in the first place. Can't blame nature for this, since God decides what nature does. Can't blame sinful man for this, since he has no power to control weather.

This is an obvious case of God speaking through judgments. This was the "fiat of Heaven." This was God's doing.

And what exactly was God up to in all this? "The people recognize God's justice and mercy in withholding the dew and the rain until they have been brought to confess His name." After the people's eyes were opened and they had a clearer view of God's character, they recognized the withholding of dew and rain as "justice and mercy." Justice is easy to see, but why mercy? Because through this painful experience, they were saved from the more painful experience of spiritual death. Through this, they were led to confess God's name.

Would Satan have caused this himself? I doubt it. He ain't no fool.


This one seems the clearest of all. The SAME ANGEL who smote Peter also smote Herod. That is clear beyond contention.

Is this angel a holy angel? Is this angel one who ministers to the needs of men, or ministers their destruction? Is this angel a messenger of God or of Satan?

I would say that this angel - the angel of the Most High - is one of the good guys. I don't think he wanted to wreak havoc among men, just waiting for God to allow him. I believe he acted upon God's command. And we find that he who rescued Peter from death also caused "great agony of mind and body" to Herod.

Pain and death? Yes. Done by God's messenger? Yes. According to His will? Yes. And this "became the means of leading many to a belief in Christ."

God sometimes causes pain if it is eternally beneficial.

Arnold, in regards to your last post, so many different concepts are covered, it would be difficult to respond to each of them. So I'll just comment on a couple of things, and you're free to repost any of the other points you brought up if you wish.

Regarding God's doing things that we're not allowed to do, these quotes presuppose perceiving that God is doing these things in the first place. I realize that the SOP is saying that God did these things, but Scripture often presents God as doing things too, even though God actually permitted them rather than cause them to happen. For example, God killed Saul, God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, God moved David to number Israel, God destroyed Jerusalem, God sent a lying spirit to Ahab, etc.

I assume you're heard of Kohlberg's principles:



People can be in different stages. God communicates truths to people in each stage, as He is constrained to do, in order to reach people at that stage. That risks the possibility of being misunderstood.

I'll give a couple of examples. Steps to Christ tells us there is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. That would give the impression that we should be focused on these things, that heaven and hell should be motivations for us; that is, that fear of punishment and hope of reward are motivating factors we should be guided by. But "The Desire of Ages" tells us:



For someone in a lower stage of moral development, God says, "There's a heaven to win, and a hell to shun." Someone further along can understand the Desire of Ages statement. The fact that God says the former doesn't make the latter not true. It's only an apparent contradiction, based on God's communicating to people who perceive things differently.

Another example is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. In this parable, Christ knew that many of His listeners believed the soul was immortal, so He told a parable which agreed with the paradigm that they had. This didn't mean that their paradigm was correct, but Christ worked within that paradigm to teach them truth.

Now let's consider the flood statement. The overlying principle is that we should use violence against others just because we perceive that this is what God did. This doesn't mean that God used violence any more than it means that God believes the soul is immortal. God is communicating truth (don't use violence) to one who has a certain paradigm (God uses violence). But if we look to other portions of Scripture, and the SOP, it's clear that God doesn't use violence at all, just as it's clear that the soul is not immortal, Christ's parable notwithstanding.

This is a long-winded explanation of the flood statement, which I hope is understandable. I wrote this out in detail because the principles explained here also apply to other of the examples you brought out.

I'll address one other point:



The following is from "The Great Controversy"



I want to be very clear here, so as not to be misunderstood. I'm not saying that Satan caused the drought. I'm simply addressing the question as to whether Satan would do such a thing. From the above quote, we see that he would. We see that the "great deceiver" conceals his own work when others view the sufferings he causes as a punishment visited upon those suffering by the direct decree of God. So again, as to the question if Satan *would* do such a thing, the answer is clearly yes.

Now as to his not doing this because of not being a fool, we see the reverse applies. Because he is clever, he *does* do such things. Why? So people will view God as being a harsh, violent God. It is in Satan's interests that God be viewed in such a way.

I'm reminded of the following statement:



The truth is that *Satan* is the author of sin and all its results. This means that he, and he alone, is responsible, which was my original point (quoting from myself, slightly edited, the original point that you responded to)

While thinking about this some more, it occurred to me that there's a rather simply way to explain the differences of opinion here. There are two sets of statements in the SOP. On the one hand, the SOP says things like:

a.Force is not a principle of God's government. Compelling force is to be found only in Satan's government.
b.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son while here in the flesh.

On the other hand, there are scores of statements where it appears that God is acting violently and using force. So how is this apparent contradiction to be resolved?

It appears to me there are two ways to go about this. One way is to particularize the above statements, a and b. So that rather than describing how God always works, they describe how God generally works. So, for example, a. becomes:

a.Generally speaking, God does not use force or act violently. But there are some exceptions.

Now we can harmonize concept a. with statements where God acts violently and uses force by simply considering these statements to be exceptions.

I don't know how to particularize b, but I'm sure one could attempt to do so in a way similar to a.

The other way to harmonize the apparent contradictions is to take the approach that there is another explanation to the events in Scripture which depict God as acting violently or using force.

While the former approach is by far more common, I believe the latter approach is the correct one.

Arnold, regarding #116138, my question involves the principle that it's OK to cause excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial. I asked if what was done in Medieval times, where some people (those who sincerely believed that by their actions they could be eternally saving the heretic) applied this same principle, if that was OK.

It appears your answer is, "No, because they were not God." In this case, the principle "It's OK to cause excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial" becomes "It's OK to cause excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial, if you are God". Does this accurately reflect your view of things?

This way of looking at things seems to be wanting to make God responsible for what happened. From "The Great Controversy"



For "Satan" here, one can substitute "fiery snakes," as we see the same principles at work. The Jews in the desert "caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them." They "persistently resisted" the Spirit of God, who was "at last withdrawn."

It would be a mistake to view the sufferings of the Jews as something God was doing to them.

I have never understood how you did not understand the comparison Tom was making. Thank you for explaining it. It makes sense and has indeed been used concerning stoning, etc. You are saying things are different now than then.

However, was/is the papacy under a theocracy? Whether real (as intended) or imagined? I think that was what Tom was getting at "but to an individual playing a role".

A certain denomination believes that in the near future, God's kingdom will be established on the earth -- though not much else changes. Do you think they could believe they would be under a theocracy? Even though it was not real, do you think they would fully believe it?


I can now see from what you explained above why you don't think it relates, but I think it very much so relates.


I don't think from specifically reading of those of Egypt nor the future, but of their idea of God either from the Bible or from being instructed as to how He is.

I have yet to find where you define COI. Is that a type of goldfish?

By the way, I think Teresa pointed out your comment referenced above comes across so ..... (I will refrain from describing it as you have requested) to some of us. I will attempt to consider that you are not trying to incite us but have misunderstood...? Could you please explain why, when, whoever the goldfish were, they were requested to commemorate the Pass Over (the passing over, the sparing of their first born), would you think it to mean to commemorate the killing, the slaughtering, of the Egyptians? Do you really think God would ask us to celebrate someone's misfortune? This thought process is what gets my, and at least Teresa's, hackles up. This comes across as intentional deceit. Like I said, I will try my best to be open about this and attempt to understand how you came to this idea. You have explained the theocracy reason so I understand you at least better. Can you do the same, refrain from quoting a bunch of stuff but explain in detail about relating the commemorating of the killing. Thank you.

COI = Children of Israel.

Would it be fair to make a comparison with a substitute statement?

It is wrong to believe that exactly the same rules apply to Hitler and his subjects.

(and I don't know if "receiving worship" would be considered a rule in this case)

That question is the whole point of the discussions about God's character. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It's not, do as I say, not as I do.


To reduce your question down to what it really means:
Why did God create Lucifer if He knew what would happen?

You have lost the vast distinction between the Creator and the creature. And to make to make Hitler's relationship to his subjects analogous to God's relationship to His subjects is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, to disallow every instance that does not fit into your paradigm as irrelevant makes it very easy to accept any paradigm that suits your fancy. The trick is to find a paradigm that fits all the facts.