Tom, shall I assume you will respond to my posts when you have the time?

Thanks Tom. End of discussion here for me, with pointedly you. You are irreparably too selectively oblivious and obfuscating, not to mention non-exegetical, to be worthwhile for me. There increasingly is nothing substantive and/or pertinently relevant to answer in your replies. (And as I had said, my errors are out of typos due to non-proof reading. I figured 99% correctly expressed text is better than ca. 65% text because of less time taken to proof read.) (Cf. Matt 23:23, 24)

NJK, to study with Tom it requires tact, finesse, humility, and a lot of patients. He is very intelligent. He is also very kind and accommodating. Seek to discover what he believes. Share what you believe, but make your posts short and sweet. Long responses can be tedious. But don't give up. Hang in there. Studying with Tom and will help you grow in the graces of God.

I can understand your advice here Mountain Man, but such a discussion with Tom is way too One-Way for me and “facts” are subjectively to be only what he’ll allow himself, from his ‘unimpeachable view’, to begin to recognize! Don’t need let my exegetical facts get in the way of that approach, and that, at my waste of time and effort! And anything else that has been brought up in this discussion instead of a head on answer to a question/comment, has really just been defensive, peripheral diversions.

And, in regards to Truth, I focus on the ‘substantive internals’, rather than the ‘indeterminative externals’. (Matt 23:25, 26). It is this ‘Truth that will set one free’, and not ‘polished externals’ or else we should all be, e.g., LDS by now.

Perhaps Tom will now have more time to answer/address your own points head on here!?

P.S. “Intelligence” can be objectively, substantively ascertain/measured/determined as patently done on e.g., various tests were only the correct answer along with the demonstration of mastering the subject do so prove that point.

Yes. And thanks for the kind words on the other post.

You could discuss things with kland, if he's willing. He sees things very similarly to how I do. APL also shares some similarities as well.



I don't think you're reading very carefully, to make a statement like this.



The problem is not typos, but improper use of words, improper grammar, and, primarily, writing incoherently. Typos are obvious and easy to figure out, but when you leave out nouns, and verbs, and use one word when you really mean another, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to figure out what you're trying to say. I don't know if the difficulty is due to a lack of ability to write clearly, or a lack of desire. Whichever it is, the adage about not throwing stones when living in a glass house certainly applies.

It really is incredible that one who writes so poorly would be so critical. Your posts are an extreme example of the pot calling the kettle black.



This is a good example of what I'm talking about.

I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.



By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.



This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?



The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.



Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death.

If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.



I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.



I disagree that it begs this question.



You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it.

Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?




As stated, this is entirely untrue. The will of the sinner has to be given weight.



Again, poorly stated. This makes it sound like God is responsible for evil. Permitting an evil thing to occur is not the same as causing it. Again, the will of the sinner must be given weight.



Gravity plays a part. If a person is careless, and dies due to falling, it would be a terrible mistake to blame this on Jesus, or to suggest this was His will, or say anything which in any way would imply that He was to any degree in any way responsible.



As you see things.



I can think of few statements that I disagree with more adamantly than this. The fact that the phrase "weapon in the arsenal of Jesus" enters your thinking I find unfortunate.



Same comment. I'm sorry you think this way.



Same comment. I'm sorry you view Jesus Christ is this way, as one using using different weapons in his arsenal to destroy; as a destroyer.



Anything contrary to God's character qualifies. The law is a transcript of God's character. Also, Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father, so anything contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ qualifies.



Burning people alive is a bad thing.



Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Destruction and death are the results of sin, and hence, of Satan. I'm not sure if your question has a philosophical aspect to it. If a person has a terrible disease, death could be a blessing. Are you trying to get at this?



We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character.

I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense.

You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.



To assert this is to not read what GC 35-37 actually says, it seems very clear to me. For example:



I'm not sure how she could have stated the reverse of what you are asserting more clearly than this.



Same comment.



Again, if you actually read what GC 35-37 says, I don't see how one conclude the things you are concluding.



I think this is a FOTAP question (fallacy of the assumed premise).



There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. These include ourselves (our actions, health issues), others (angelic or human), and natural disasters, to name three that come to me quickly. What I see you doing is think of incidents where you don't see any way the principles of GC 35-37 could apply. But I, and I'm sure kland, can easily think of ways. I'm not sure what kland would think of would agree with what I think, but it wouldn't matter to either of us, because we're both convinced of the principles which we see always apply. This is what I mean when I say the exact mechanism doesn't matter, as long as the principles hold fast. We're convinced of the principles because we're convinced regarding God's character.

What I've found most interesting in regards to this present post is that you appear to view what happened in the destruction very differently than I do. For example, you state that " the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews," when the point, as I see it, is that the Jews forged their own fetters, and that while many view God as punishing the impenitent Jews, it is the Great Deceiver who actually caused their destruction, hiding his own work by making others think it was God.

Still really busy, MM. I took a long time with this last post, and don't know when I'll have this much time again in the near future, but if you'll tell me of any other posts you have which I haven't responded to, I'll give it a shot as I can.

(1) I long had figured the kland and APL possibility....

(2) When you do everything and anything but answer the issue head on, as in this answer itself, you are being: ‘selectively oblivious, defensive, obfuscating, non-exegetical, increasingly insubstantive and/or non-pertinently relevant, among other diversionary tactics of yours. In a court of law, you’d be charged with “contempt of court” following a plethora of various applicable “objections.” Your arguments are as substantively vacuous and diversionary as saying that: ‘despite the scientific rain forecast for this afternoon, it usurely won’t rain because of the present beautiful blue sky’!!?

(3) Knowing my traditional typing ordeal and considering my final products, I know it all stems from ‘thinking much faster than I can type’ and also ‘still thinking something through while I am typing’ which results in certain confusions at times = typos. So what you have been reading were really my brainstorming rough draft. And by your own condemnatory self-imposed standard here: I guess you really believe that “Place” means “Please” (post #132728)???? And I am not responsible for what you just did not/would not understand!

(4) Matt 23:23, 24 does stand because proper Biblical exegesis is infinitely more important than a polished final draft, but you probably really do not/cannot see or understand that fact...and do try the entire chapter of Matt 23 instead!!! Quite fitting for an SDA Seminarian. You really are a fine product of the SDA Theological Seminary. Can’t hold it against you for that!!

I like reading their posts. Hope that works out.



There are many questions you've ignored/not addressed/not answered, however you want to characterize it, but no one has accused you of whatever. There are many posts to wade through, and it's easy to overlook something. The thing to do when this happens is to repeat the thing you wish the other person would consider. You'll notice that MM and I do this routinely, and without calling each other names or making rash accusations.



This really is a beam vs. speck thing here. Your posts are just horrendous to read. There's no way you can compare your posts to mine in this regard. Sure I can miss a word here and there, but there's no comparison here. There are people that avoid discussing things with you just because they can't understand what you're saying.

You do many things inconsiderate of your reader. You don't quote Scripture texts, because that's too much work for you. You don't proof-read what you write. And you insult people. All this points to the fact that you consider yourself more highly than others. You've said as much. Your time is more important, others are "worthwhile" to deal with, and so forth. None of this speaks well to any views you hold. The admonition of Scripture is that we put others more highly than ourselves.



Another insult. That's fitting.



And another.



And another.



And another.

I don't understand why you think insulting other people is OK. I also don't understand why you prefer to do this rather than deal with the issues involved. I also don't understand why you are unable to deal with the issues involved without insulting others.