You remember studying spontaneous generation in biology class? People believed that animals could spontaneously generate from substances because they didn't understand that small eggs were involved? The fact that it says that lice came out of dust does not mean that God created lice out of the dust, any more than mollusks are created from mud.

I disagree that what happened with the lice could not have happened because God withdrew His protection. It could have been similar to His sending the fiery snakes upon the Israelites.

Also I find saying that God "employed" the "withdraw and permit" principle is misleading. This certainly isn't something I've suggested. The way the SOP puts it is that the people "caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them." I think that's a far better expression.

thanks for the opening to get back on track here. i would like to relate this thread more to the love that God had for both the egyptians and the israelites in His manner of dealing with them as he did.

the traditional method of dealing with this is in portraying God as punishing, but was that His goal with the plagues?

it is recorded that pharoah did not acknowledge the Creator. instead he gave credit for all the bounties of our God to his gods. the river god being one of them.

in stepping out of tradition we have the opportunity, if we so choose, to see how much God loved and "pursued" the egyptians as much as He did the israelites.

I'm trying to remember who it is that talks about this, and am thinking it might be Waggoner, the "this" being how hard God worked to reach the Egyptians. God worked hard to reach all the nations. This is often missed, with the other nations besides Israel often being viewed simply as a group of wicked people that He wanted to destroy.

Waggoner had a number of insights in this regard. I'm trying to remember a couple of them. One had to do with God's counsel to not fight the Babylonians. In addition to Israel, God offered the same counsel to nations gathering together with Israel to discuss a strategy. That is, God, by way of a prophet, gave some nation or nations (can't remember any names) the same counsel He was giving the Israelites, which was counsel not to fight the Babylonians. God promised they could remain in their home land if they didn't.

I think many mistakes are made by taking the wrong perspective in viewing things. Instead of viewing God as a Heavenly Father, Wise and Loving, giving counsel, God is viewed more as a harsh despot who gives orders or commands, and wreaks vengeance upon those who disregard it. This is the type of perspective I perceive in regards to the COI questions regarding why God "commanded" this or that.

An interesting trivia question is how many times did Jesus Christ refer to God as Father? And how many times did He refer to Him as judge? I think the respective answers are something like 170 times for the former and 0 for the latter. Yet, in spite of Jesus' emphasis, if you ask people what comes to their mind when they think of "God," "judge" is more likely to be mentioned than "Father."

At any rate, your point is excellent. Yes, yes, yes, God was trying to reach and save the Egyptians. He sent Joseph as a prophet to reach them, preparing the way to evangelize what was then the most powerful nation on earth. By heeding Joseph, Egypt was greatly blessed. After Joseph's time came Pharaoh's who "knew not Joseph", and that began a period of decline. Not because God arbitrarily punished them, but because they refused the counsel of a wise heavenly Father.

What comes to my mind is a couple in for counseling with one saying they aren't communicating well, and the other brushes it off as there is no problem.

I find that offensive.


ingratiating - Which ingratiates; which attempts to bring oneself into the favour of another. The implication is often of flattery or insincerity.

to ingratiate - Bring oneself into favour with someone by flattering or trying to please them.

I'm not sure why think I should be flattering you, being insincere, or trying to please you.



No offense was intended. While Asygo may understand the concept of abstraction, I have no indication you do. So, I was asking and explaining by example. It seems like you don't like examples given to more clarify the {non}communication problem. You seem to want others to blindly accept your own personal beliefs without questioning them. Then get offended when anyone dares to see things differently. I guess I need to find some other way to attempt to communicate to you without abstraction, without example.

It appears to me you greatly offended Teresa and have been greatly disagreeable on your part towards her and my questioning of what is to be remembered. I saw no concern on your part other than worried about your own self being offended - or failing to be flattered.

You want a direct statement of what I believe? I believe you are wrong in saying we are to remember and celebrate the footnotes rather than the main event. That would be like throwing out the baby while keeping the water which cleansed off the filth. (Wait, that's an example isn't it?)

I also believe you are wrong in saying the river was literal blood and water could be obtained from digging holes along the sides. I could be wrong and you can explain/clarify this more. Have you done or have you read anything where this is true? What comes to my mind is something about osmotic potential.

The only two definitions of the word "ingratiating" from Merriam Webster's online dictionary.

1 : capable of winning favor : pleasing
2 : intended or adopted in order to gain favor : flattering
— in·gra·ti·at·ing·ly Listen to the pronunciation of ingratiatingly \-ˈgrā-shē-ˌā-tiŋ-lē\ adverb

---

I've always understood it to be a synonym for "pleasing."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

- Moderator Hat On -

As I have reviewed the past couple of pages here, and the discussion has not been entirely pleasant, lest the tone continue to wobble downhill it appears we need to take a 24-hour break.

When we resume, let us remember to speak to the topic, speak courteously as becomes disciples of Christ, and do our best to give others the benefit of the doubt, instead of assuming the worst.

- Moderator Hat Off -

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This topic is now reopened.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, did you know you were going to lock the thread temporarily when you posted your post ##117100? Because if you did, it was in poor form to lock the thread immediately after that. Do you see why?

I see that some time passed in between this post and your locking the thread, so perhaps you posted, and then, some time after that, decided to lock the thread. Is that what happened?

Tom,

I did some reading and research between those two posts, and finally did decide to give the topic a break. I had not been keeping up on this topic for quite some time, but I hope to follow it more closely now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, Thank you for your response....