No, this is your idea. Or, rather, your idea of what I've said. I've not said this, or anything like this. What I've said is that God manages nature, that nature is not self-acting (and quoted the same quotes you later quoted back to me). The point is that if God withdraws from this work, bad things are liable to happen.

Consider the pilot of a complicated piece of machinery, like a 747 or the Shuttle. What would happen if the pilot "withdrew"?



??? No, they're NOT self-acting, which is why God must manage them.



No, not at all. That's Augustine again. There's a difference between managing and micro-managing, I guess is one way of putting it.

It's true that nature is governed by laws which God created, and true that God manages nature, but it's not true that if a tornado happens, or any other natural disaster, that God made that happen.



MM, are you familiar with chaos theory? Or quantum physics?

We must study the truth for ourselves. No living man should be relied upon to think for us. No matter who it is, or in what position he may be placed, we are not to look upon any man as a perfect criterion for us. We are to counsel together, and to be subject to the same time we are to exercise the ability God has given us to learn what is truth. Each one of us must look to God for divine enlightenment. We must individually develop a character that will stand the test in the day of God. We must not become set in our ideas, and think that no one should interfere with our opinions.--Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. {CW 45.1}

Let me answer you with your own words:

And some emphasis on a part where you did not focus in that quote...and which is also misquoted in your post, but very relevant here.

"We are to counsel together, and to be subject to one another; but at the same time we are to exercise the ability God has given us to learn what is truth."

The sentence you posted in green was also quite relevant.

Now, can we return to discussing the plagues?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not true?

It seems to be true at least some of the time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

May I ask how this would differ from God choosing to do the following?



Would that fit your definition of "force?"

I'm not against the concept that God would force events. Nor do I believe Mrs. White has stated that God will not force events. What I'm pointing out is that God will not force our choice. If God did this, why would not everyone be saved?

The example you bring here is far more like the devil's kind of force than God's. God is loving. He presents the options. There ARE consequences for wrong choices--eternal ones. However, He still gives you the free choice. You may choose to be lost if you wish. But in order to be saved, He does not force you to pay an exorbitant sum of money. God has no such requirement.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, it's not true. In order for the above to be a true statement, it would need to be the case that God caused the tornado to happen every single time there was a tornado.



Again, in order for MM's statement to be true, it would have to be the case *all* of the time, not just some of the time.

Also, you're assuming that a judgment means God is making something happen, but:



I know from a previous comment that you'd prefer to limit this statement in scope to an isolated incident, but if one reads the part in bold, it's easy to see this is a general principle that's not limited in scope.

Regarding #117925, GC, I asked how the hypothetical example I came up if the person involved would not be forcing your will. You appear to be limiting forcing the will to God's using supernatural power to force you to do something you don't want to, like by demonic possession. But that's not the only way to overpower someone's will. You can do so by causing them to be afraid of you. And this looks to be precisely the view of the plagues you have.

That is, you believe God used His power to make Pharaoh more and more afraid of Him, until he was finally so afraid of Him he was compelled to do something he didn't want to do, which was to let the Israelites. In other words, God used compelling power to force Pharaoh's will.

Given your understanding of events, I don't see how you can deny this is the case.



The example I brought looks to be just like how you perceive God to have acted in the plagues. I agree that this is like the devil's kind of force, which is why I've been arguing against this perception.



But this isn't what we're dealing with here. God was (in your view) demanding that Pharaoh let His people go, and escalating violence against him if he didn't.



GC, this isn't dealing with the issue. Here's how the example works:

1.In the example, you represent Pharaoh.
2.The fellow making demands represents God.
3.The fellow threatens violence against your property and family if you don't give in to his demand. This represents God's doing the same thing in regards to His demand against pharaoh.

The questions are:
1.Is the fellow in the example using compelling power to force your will?
2.How does the fellow's actions in the example not represent your view of God's actions in the plagues?

To amplify on the second question, if you accused him of using compelling power to force your will, he could respond, "No! I didn't do that! I simply gave you options. I pointed out that this is a dangerous neighborhood, and gave you an option, and pointed out there were consequences to choosing the wrong option. I didn't force your will. You were always free to choose whatever you wanted."

On the contrary, Pharaoh was not required to pay an exorbitant sum of money. God did not come to him as an extortioner or a thief. God's people did not rightfully belong to Pharaoh, and God merely asked him to let His people go.

To top it off, the Israelites were herders and shepherds, both considered abominable to the Egyptians. The Egyptians were afraid of these people becoming too strong for them. It would have seemed the better part of wisdom on Pharaoh's part to agree quickly with God in the matter.

On these points, I find your example to greatly fail of being representative of the plagues.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

This greatly misrepresents God. Your questions here are akin to asking a man if he has stopped beating his wife. No answer can be a correct or appropriate response. God is not who you think He is, and God is not who you think I think He is.

Let me ask you this, does a death penalty represent "threatening violence?"

Keep in mind that all of Egypt represented LOST PEOPLE. They did not know God. If God had to use extraordinary means to awaken them to a realization of their true condition and of the true power of the King of the Universe, I would hope He would do so. Doing nothing will save no one. Even killing a few for the salvation of others is better than killing none and saving none, don't you think?

Sin is like a cancer. The surgeon must frequently remove good parts of the body (kill them) in order to save the rest of the body. We frequently hear of people who have lost a lung, a kidney, their voice box, etc. in order to preserve their life. Did the Doctor do "violence" to them?

I object to the use of this word under the circumstances.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.