is that what tom has said or implied? you wouldnt be trying to put your opponent in the worst possible light, right?

those who try to make others look bad are the ones who look bad to me, even if i agree with their position. while there may be guests and spiders who feel its ok to hurt ones opponent, there are definitely others who are like me. what is coming will be a shock to all of us. it will be the most horrible time this planet has ever seen. already the judgments of God are being poured out.

again, gc, can you produce posts from tom where he has stated it this way?


i respect that you are trying to honor God, but is it possible others sincerely believe they are also honoring God?

including myself here also, because i need to watch myself more closely, dont we honor God most by treating everyone with respect and dignity?

Teresa,

By putting that question to me, you have done what you criticize me of. However, I am blameless. Here are the quotes from Tom in which he has said or implied what I referenced:




Who are you trying to make look bad here? I think an apology is in order.


I agree on this point.

Go back some pages in this thread, some months even, and you will find multiple posts where Tom has clearly explained his view. The quotes I provided above are some good examples.


Yes. Please treat me this way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is completely different from the plagues. In the case of the Jews, they placed themselves beyond God’s protection, and reaped the results of this. But we can’t say that the Egyptians were placing themselves alternatively in and out of a position under God’s protection (as the plagues came and went), or that the same will happen with the seven last plagues. So what is the explanation for the plagues?

Rosangela, you wrote the following all together:



The last thing I wrote doesn't belong here. That is, it should be:



And then, from a different post:



Putting them altogether is confusing, because it makes it should like we had a conversation we didn't have.

Anyway, I don't see that you answered my questions.

Regarding what you wrote:



This is rather confusing. It looks to be based on a false premise. The best I can make out is that you are thinking that according to my point of view the Egyptians must have been putting themselves in and out of God's protection, so my answer to your question is that I disagree with the premise upon which it is based.

Ellen White speaks somewhere (I think teresa quoted something in this thread) about God's selectively removing His protection. I can't remember how the quote goes, but basically God is responsible for protecting us from everything. If He removed His protection from everything, we'd all be utterly destroyed. So *anytime* God removes His protection, it has to be selectively.

Actually not! There's only two incidents which can even mistakenly be applied to give this impression, and this is one of them (the other is the cleansing of the temple). Regarding this one, we note:



Notice she says "thou hast destroyed thyself." Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, we have a great deal of information regarding the principles of judgment involved there, including the entire first chapter of "The Great Controversy." Here's an excerpt:



So we see that the fig tree is actually an acted parable of the principle we've been speaking of, that destruction comes when His protection is caused to be removed.

That's not exactly what she said. She said that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. So this doesn't mean that we can't learn things from the other parts of Scripture besides the Gospels, but that anything we learn, if it's true, should be present in the life and character of Christ.

You might perceive something in one place of Scripture that you don't perceive in another. If it's about God, and it's really true, you should be able to see it the life and character of Jesus Christ.



Obviously there is information in the other books. What EGW said is that all we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.



The SOP tells us that all that can be know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. The primary purpose of Scripture is to lead us to Christ. The OT prophesied of Christ, and pointed to Him in a number of ways. The Gospels speak to us of Him in a particular way, but He is spoken of throughout Scripture. So the principle is not that we can't learn of Christ in other books besides the Gospels, but that anything we learn of God we should be able to find in Him (i.e., in His life and character).

Are you saying it's possible Jesus turned the dust into lice? If so, in what sense was He protecting the Egyptians?

I see nothing confusing in what I asked. A plague would come, then after a few days everything would return to normal. What was happening, after all? Did/Does God remove His protection, restoring it after a time? How do you see it?
(I think the quote you refer to is the one which says that the plagues won't be universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off.)

Amen!

I don't think so. I don't think you're acting maliciously, intentionally misrepresenting my ideas, but I don't see how you could hold yourself to be "blameless" and write something like this:



Where have I written anything like this?

There are other examples as well. To be "blameless" one should be presenting the ideas of another in a way that *that person* would agree that the presentation is accurate.


Tom