Yes, that seems a better way to describe it. If God’s thought/intent/perspective were applied to (or reduced down to) the limitation of time and space, we would expect that it would express in a logical fashion; though, absent this constraint, it’s not appropriate to describe this quality relative to if/then cause and effect.

I share your ponderings on defense. A recent conversation with a friend lent some insight... we were discussing the matter of punishment and revenge. If it would be just to use force on an attacker during an act of violence, is it just mere seconds later when his victim is beyond salvation? Must we catch an aggressor in the act to justify the use of force?

I think this nuance is beyond our current, tenuous understanding of cause-and-effect morality; however, from my current perspective it seems reasonable to suppose that if a person is threatening violence by word or deed, that it is just to stop them pre-emptively. This is expressed threat I’m talking about, not just a hunch - pulling out a gun, saying “Gimme your wallet or I’ll cut you”, gathering people and weapons while promising imminent attack, etc.

Afterward is a little trickier. Second chances sometimes yield heroes of justice and freedom, great teachers, or healing hands. In this case we’d be looking for honest repentance, which is never certain. All in all, we yet have much to learn. The bottom line is that moral law is a last-resort set of guidelines - acting from Love in earnest is the true moral position, and even this must be coupled with wisdom lest we risk paving a road to hell with our intentions.