Please post inspired passages to support your theory. Thank you. Otherwise, it is just your opinion.

Please refer to the comment below which discusses how you are, IMO, going about this in the wrong way.



MM, please quote something I've actually written. Where do I even state, let alone "insist" on what you alleging?



MM, you're going about this in the wrong way, IMO. You're looking at the Bible as if it were a code book, as if we were robots set to receive instructions. Rather than this, the Bible should be seen as a case history of how God has revealed Himself to man. You can't just grab isolated incidents and jump to conclusions and hope to get a right picture this way. The Bible as a whole should be considered, comparing line upon line.

Satan has misrepresented God's character. He has sought to represent God as severe and harsh. Religious people, especially, seem to buy into this picture. Jesus Christ came to reveal what God was really like. Until Jesus Christ came, God was misunderstood. It was to enlighten this misunderstanding that Jesus came. The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. Even holy angels were amazed by what they saw. They still are. Until Christ came, even they were confused by Satan and his claims. The OT had not been sufficient for them to clarify the issues. They needed the revelation of Jesus Christ.



Now if even holy angels needed the revelation of Jesus Christ, why should we think we sinful humans didn't need it?



The principles to answer your questions are in the story I cited. As I've been saying, I can't explain it better than that. If you can't understand the answer to your questions from that explanation, then, as I've been saying, we'll just have to "agree to disagree."

Tom, the DA 758 quote you posted does not say the holy angels needed to behold Christ and Him crucified to clear up certain misunderstandings they had concerning the law and love of God.

Your "humane hunter" story does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill two sinners. Nor does it explain all the other stories where God commanded Jews to kill people. First of all, it is not a sin to hunt. Second, it does not violate the law to teach people how to hunt humanely.

Asking me to read your "humane hunter" story, to understand why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys, seems to imply that He taught the Jews how to kill sinners in the most humane manner.

The question is - Did God compromise to accommodate sin? In particular, did He teach the Jews how to humanely kill those two sinners? If so, why? Why didn't He teach them the truth instead, especially since they weren't sure what to do with them and they specifically asked God what would be the right thing to do?

The quote points out that Christ's death was not just for us, but for the angels and unfallen worlds as well. Christ's death resolved the Great Controversy. The chapter goes into depth explaining this. There are other passages as well which point out that apart from the cross, the angels would be no more secure than they were before Lucifer rebelled.



Yes it does, but apparently you're not understanding how.



It just looks like you're not getting the point.



Yes, you're not getting it. I'm sorry about that.



We're just going to have to skip this, I think.

MM, sorry I have to do this, but I do this as a demonstration. I believe you have unfairly accused me of something and I wish to demonstrate how the same could be said about you. I'm not saying that is right, nor am I say these are my views towards you. Just another example of a different presumed premise.



I think Tom as articulately addressed this. What I'd like to ask is why did you employ that construct? You do not seem to be the overly sensitive type. Why you used this, I do not know; although I do have an opinion.

As far as saying things unloving and unkind goes, I took offense at some things you have said which I thought was a little rude. I think Tom gave good advice regarding how you could address my comments (Of course I would! ) -- either by arguing you are not taking the presumed premise or that such premise does not preclude a loving and kind God. I will attempt to take this advice in addressing support for my claim of you being critical, judgmental, unloving, unkind, and rude. I realize that if this is true, that in no way says your claims of likewise are not true. Neither does it give justification of others doing the same. I am only pointing out that while my intent was not to be unloving nor unkind to you, using the same measuring stick, one could conclude it about you. To disagree with someone is to be "critical and judgmental" of their views. Otherwise they would be in agreement. So, except for the following, all I saw was discussion of ideas.




Tom may be wrong. Tom may believe a lie. But the way you said it comes across that he was intentional misleading and that you know the truth and everyone else should see it clearly.




Could it be that your quote of:

conflicts with what you have said, thus leading towards your claim of unfairness and your further statement:

Do you see a problem that if God punishes the transgressors, but the punishment serves to educate the righteous (not sure what FMAs are), then the righteous must be the transgressors, or that perhaps you are saying that one person's punishment helps another? One person's torture is for another's benefit? Hitler said the same.
Do you have inspired passages which state the God's direct punishment of the wicked serves to educate and enlighten the righteous?


Did Adam and Eve kiss? Did they have sex? Please post inspired passages which say so. Do you see the absurdity of needing a direct quote for the possibility of anything to have happened?

Tom has an opinion. He has given passages to support it.
You have an opinion. You have given passages to support it.
I have an opinion that you have given more passages. In fact, direct questions you have answered with nothing but quotations. Like a "code book"?
I have asked, how does one decide. I have suggested it is from our own presumed premise. You have cried foul. You have yet to support that claim. Do you suggest, as implicated by your posts, that we should decide the truth based upon the number of passages supporting each opinion?

I don't believe anything needs said here.




He is forced to execute the law, even though He does not wish to? Suppose someone received a speeding ticket. They go before the judge. The judge has mercy and cancels it. But yet, you say God cannot change some law which He is not happy about executing, and takes great pleasure in seeing that it is satisfied? Love - mercy. Not sure how to reconcile this.


And in what way could God act that could be considered cruel or torture? Just saying that God is holy and therefore nothing He does is cruel doesn't answer the question.


Not sure if I missed something here, but it sounds like you saying that if God was loving, He wouldn't say to kill people. However since He did, He is not loving.

Since you think my views of your views are wrong, that you see God as not loving and kind, maybe you could state exactly what your views are of God. That is, since you did not answer my question, put your views into my question and then answer it. You do see your views are different than mine. I'm asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a fill in your view of God here God rather than my view of God who lets the flood waters come back, who is always consistent, never taking emergency measures, lets the wicked reap their results, who never directly kills them....

From what I've seen, the reason is because you do not find a specific direct quote which you interpret that way. Is that the reason?

Excuse me for breaking in here but I have read through this thread and it appears that some of you believe that God doesn't punish sinners. How could that possibly be true? Would God be just if everyone no matter to what degree they sinned were punished exactly the same. That would not only be unjust to the sinners but likewise to the saved. Could you imagine going to court for a speeding ticket and getting the same punishment as someone who committed murder? God is love because he sent his son to die for our sins so that we may be saved but he is also just which by definition is fair wether your lost or saved.



just   
–adjective 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
8. actual, real, or genuine.

jibb444, I don't think anyone on this thread believes God won't punish people, although there is a difference of opinion as to what this means and how it will occur. Perhaps you could quote some statement by someone, and then make a comment or ask a question about that.

Thanks Tom for the invite. I'll ask a question. Is there degrees of punishment for the wicked? Just to clarify I do have an opinion on this but I am learning everyday and always keep an open mind.

I think everyone on this site would agree that there are degrees of punishment for the wicked. I have met people who do not have this opinion, but do not think anyone posting here has it. Again, however, there is a difference of opinion as to what this means, or how this will occur.