so who disagreed? but the way it is stated here i see as stealing the glory due God.

both the bible and sop try to stress Gods unfailing love, protection and restraint of evil over our lives.

both the bible and sop stress that we have a very real enemy and it is not God.

Do you disagree with what he wrote about Ps 78:49? If so, why?

you appear to have completely disregarded this post of mine in your answer. it isnt the first time a post of mine has been ignore, possibly overlooked.

i can only assume they didnt fit ones picture since they were not proven wrong.

post116134 page 49
and this says how it will happen: if you cannot answer this why not just admit it? why ignore it as if it were not posted?

The purpose of the question was to ascertain if the same principle applied, so this can hardly be a faulty assumption, since it wasn't an assumption at all, but a question. By your response, I assume your answer is no, that the principle involved is not a general principle, but a specific one, applying only to God, akin to receiving worship.

But let's consider this a bit further. The question is if it's OK to cause others excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial. The assumption is being made that it's OK for God to do this. Now if we take the position that the holy angels are causing the plagues, then it must be OK for them as well. So it's not akin to receiving worship! (since angels can't receive worship) It's something different.

Now, given that holy angels can cause excruciating pain to humans if its eternally beneficial, then why can't men? (this is assuming, of course, that God is directing humans to do as He supposedly directs angels).

I don't recall any quotes that express this idea. Which ones do you believe do?


Please repost the quotes which you believe express your idea.


Please quote the part where she specifically says the evil angels will cause the things symbolized in the plagues.


Please state your position in simple, user-friendly terms. Yes or no is very easy to understand. I'm not asking you to prove your view point, at least, not now.

Well, for one thing, I'm not a Calvinist. I don't hold the Calvinist idea that all things that happen are because God wills them to be so.

Secondly, what was written certainly doesn't present God's character in a favorable light. Let's look:



"Good angels become evil angels to sinners." I certainly don't agree with this. Holy angels perform God's will. If they become evil angels to sinners, then God becomes an evil God to sinners.

"Those that make the holy God their enemy must never expect the holy angels to be their friends." Again, this logic extends to God, so the conclusion would be that those who make God their enemy must never expect God to be their friend. This seems to me to be as contrary to what Christ taught as is possible.



This is what God, and holy angels, are like.

Don't forget, Tom, my view of how and why death and destruction happens includes yours plus four others.


I do not believe Jesus demonstrated the "withdraw and permit" principle while here in the flesh. Nor do I believe Ellen White's point was intended to say so. Yes, Jesus spoke about it, but He didn't demonstrate it.

you mean we will actually start studying the plagues one by one and see what happens? or do you mean we will continue to wonder all over the place disregarding posts, bible texts, and sop that dont fit a particular picture?

mm, if you and company want to try and prove toms beliefs wrong why not start a thread on that instead of hijacking mine? over and over and over again. you all havent won any brownie points for your side yet.

As I said, the ones teresa has been quoting. Take a look through the thread. They exhibit the same basic principle as that articulated in GC 35 and 36.



You can look at GC 35 and 36. I also mentioned 14 MR 3.

I don't know why you're asking for these though, MM. You've already seen them and already expressed your opinion that they don't apply to the plagues.

You have a completely different way of looking at things then I do. I see things in terms of principles. You think in terms of specific quotes. If the quote doesn't say something specifically, then you don't see that it applies. I look for the principle, and then look to apply it in other situations. You evidently don't feel comfortable doing this, so you're asking me for quotes isn't likely to be fruitful.

Also, I've explained at length, on a number of occasions, why I don't think this approach is fruitful, and have suggested to you a course of action I think would be fruitful. But you just keep asking me to to follow the approach that I say I don't believe is fruitful.

Regarding your following request, I say the same thing.



I think it would be better to look at Mark's thread. I tried to find a link to it, but couldn't. Sorry about that.

Here's a bit from Fifield:



This was talked about at length on Mark's thread.

Let's hold off on the assumptions and deal with some facts, which I already posted but seems to have been missed in all the excitement.


Was the angel who rescued Peter the same angel who caused "great agony of mind and body" to Herod? The answer is clearly Yes.

Was he acting in harmony or in contradiction to God's will when he smote Herod? Yes or No? The answer to that will help determine if it's OK to cause others excruciating pain if it's eternally beneficial.