The people don't punish themselves: Sin kills them!



From A. G. Maxwell:

Tom,

I'm sad to hear you are a Sadducee, for with this view, you certainly must not believe in a resurrection from the dead.

Sin killed Adam and Eve. Sin killed Thomas Paine. What is the difference?

May God open your eyes,

Green Cochoa.

It does sound like if we understand the first death of the one, we can understand the second death of the other?

Who were saved on the ark? Were sinners allowed on the ark? Why were those who didn't get on the ark lost? Was it because they couldn't have got on it?

Were all those on the ark righteous? Did their state of sinfulness have anything to do with them dying the first death or not? Was God, through Noah's preaching, attempting to save all who would come onto the ark, sinner or not? Could the coming flood not be affected by whether they got on or stayed off? If they got on the ark and God would save them in spite of their sin, would you call that being cruel when they chose not to heed the warnings of escaping the coming flood?



Who or what came to take them all away?




But you said before:

If law and justice result in the death of the wicked, and He is pleased law and justice are served, wouldn't it follow that He is pleased in the result of the death of the wicked?


Sounds like the dictator mentality of there really being no choice.

Well, I'm sad to hear you're a Pharisee!

Happily, both Sadducees and Pharisees can repent and be saved!



If you have the first death in mind, this isn't the death of sin.



Amen!

How about yours? May we pray, "May God open our eyes"?

i dont really know what your ultimate point is but in these statements it does seem that the people do indeed punish themselves-as a result of sin.



i dont know how others read this, but it seems to me that when the wicked turn on satan and each other and there is "universal strife"- i read it to say they are literally killing each other off- that God ends it all by sending fire.

unless maybe we in the city want to stand by watching the bloodbath, and i seriously doubt that would be true.

Commenting on Malachi 4:1, Ellen White comments:

It could be interesting to explore what His glory means.

But right now, I wanted to address Mountain Man's view of God's character.



When a creationist looks at a fossil he says,
What fantastic organisms existed and were buried by the flood.

When an evolutionist looks at a fossil he says,
What fantastic organisms evolved during the billion of years in the past and then became no longer fit.

Both look at the same facts, but come to different conclusions. This is because they both have different presumptions. Likewise, you and I both read the same statements from the Bible and Ellen White, but come to different conclusions about God.

I didn't always have my current views about God. It wasn't in the distant past that a couple of people presented a differing view of God than what I always believed. At first, I wasn't too sure about it. I had believed that God is a loving God, but He only tolerates sinners for so long. After that, He will not only exterminate them, but will cause them to suffer and beg for mercy (that is, be ashamed for rejecting Him). But, unlike some beliefs, He won't torture them forever, but just long enough for the righteous to get satisfaction. Something didn't seem just right to me, but I felt I had better not question God and it was "better to be safe than sorry". Besides, I was told it, therefore I believed it, and what more was there to it.

However, after I was introduced to this different concept of God's character, some of the things which seemed a little conflicting to me are resolved. It makes sense, it clicks, it is like something you struggle with to figure out and someone suggests a different way of doing it and although you have not actually tried it yet, you know it will work. You may suggest at this point we should not logically analyze God's character, but I ask, why not? Didn't God give us minds to think with? Minds with which we may know Him?

The God I believe in now is a loving and kind God. One who came to save the world and not condemn it. A God whom I can trust. One who is non changing and consistent. One who meets every situation the same way, that no matter what unexpected crisis comes up, He doesn't have to implement emergency matters to meet them. A God whom the subjects feel safe with, who love Him not because the alternative is worse, not because they'll be tortured or threatened with extermination, but because at any time they know He will allow them to leave on their own free will. But just as they won't slap their mother nor even be tempted to because they love her, they will love Him and not want to leave Him. A God who we can know His character so well that when one imposes as Him, we will instantly know they are an impostor.

When we believe in a God who is not much different than a dictator other than, everything He does is "holy and just" therefore it must be ok, we run the risk of ourselves killing and torturing people if we think we are helping God out in being just. Indeed, that has happened with many, if not all, religions.

And that is my motivation for supporting my views of God from my presumed premise.

Mountain Man, what is your motivation for supporting your views of God?

Very well written, kland. I had a similar experience to what you are describing.

Regarding the "glory" question, I suggest taking a look at DA 107,108. We can discuss this in more detail when you'd like to.

Ya, that looks right to me, too: God at once merciful & just. The texts are more abou+ destruction of the devil and the wicked in judgement, isn't it. God's active mercy for sinners & wrath against sin, plus retribution to each unrepentant sinner - ultimately the devil himself - for sins unforgiven.

Is no measure of our sense of justice reflective of originally being made in the image of God?

i was seeing it in a somewhat different light. i wasnt seeing it as "retribution", "destruction", "wrath against sin".

i was seeing it as God having no choice. at the second coming the wicked are out to kill Gods people til they see Him coming, then they turn on each other and theres is widespread slaughter and bloodshed. instead of repenting when they realized they had been deceived and were wrong they started blaming each other....

they same thing at the third coming. as they surround the city and then Christ appears above them they realize its hopeless. again, instead of being humbled and repenting they turn on each other. they would rather kill than repent.

so God has no choice but to end it all. the wicked have shown no matter how many chances they get they would prefer to murder, than repent.