Please post inspired passages which say so. Thank you.


Jack Kevorkian kills people by withdrawing life support.
God kills people by withdrawing the breath of life.


"Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. {PP 420.2} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. {GC 539.3}

Glad to here it! I loved this story when I first read it because it gave a clear and understandable explanation to a difficult concept. If we keep in mind two principles, that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and the principle illustrated by the story, I think many (maybe all) of the OT stories can be understood in a way that has God acting just like we would expect given the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Satan is so subtle in his arguments that even holy angels, who lived in the very presence of God, were not clear about things until the cross, so it's no wonder that sinful human beings like us have difficulties understanding the OT.



Amen! This is a great point to hang on to. That is, we may not be able to understand or explain every possible question or incident, but that needn't shake our confidence in regards to what God's character is like. We can be completely assured that God has always acted just like how Jesus Christ acted while He lived among us, even if at times it may not appear that way.

its interesting, if we step back and think about it, that the israelites were not afraid of God, sinai and all!!

but, they were afraid that the glory shining from moses face would kill them.

makes one think and wonder!

And were they really not afraid at Sinai, Teresa?



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom gave you numerous passages. I gave you Genesis 1.
Do you intend to say that if you don't see a passage which you interpret to say there's such a possibility, you deny that the possibility exists?


Is that withdrawing or witholding?
Is either related to what you say God is going to actively do to sinners?



By the way, I don't see where you defined how "punishment" at the second death is going to help teach, correct, or instruct me. You hinted at that you do not know. Again, Tom has given numerous passages which speak contrary to your view. How do you decide which one to go with?

As I said initially, it is from each of our presumed premises. I am asking, why do you choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God?

You seem to think the Jews were anxious to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. But the opposite is true. They weren't sure what to do, so they sent Moses to ask God. If what you believe about justice and judgment is true, why, then, didn't God take the time and opportunity to demonstrate the truth? Instead, He, according to you, stooped to cater to their perverted sense of justice and judgment. What kind of parent would do such a thing?

Where in Genesis 1 does it say God was unnaturally or supernaturally preventing the forces of nature from imploding upon the planet and drowning people?


1) Some people believe God kills people by withdrawing their breath of life. 2) Others believe God withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to kill them. I believe God does all of the above plus 3) He employs the forces of nature to kill people, and 4) He commands holy angels to kill people.


Tom has proven nothing but his own opinion. He has not proven the truth. The punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire does not serve to educate or enlighten the wicked. Instead, it serves to educate and enlighten righteous FMAs throughout God's far flung Universe.

Also, it is unfair of you to characterize my views about the wrath of God as unloving and unkind. It is critical and judgmental - attributes I'm sure you loathe. Please refrain from saying things that are unloving and unkind. Thank you.

I think the story of the ever-loving father provides the necessary ingredients to correctly understanding God's actions here. If you don't see this, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree."

kland pointed out that God had to do something in order to make the land separate from the waters. Thus there's an implication that the natural order of things is that water be pre-eminent, not land. Thus in order for the Flood to occur, all that would be necessary would be for God to stop doing what He did to make the land separate from the waters, and things would start to revert back to where they originated from.



You are stating here that I have proven my own opinion. If I have proven my opinion, then there are two possibilities.

1.My opinion is the truth.
2.My opinion is contrary to the truth.

Since I have proven my opinion, if 1 is the case, I *have* proven the truth. If 2 is the case, then the truth is false, because it differs from my opinion, which I have proven. Since 2 is obviously not the case, 1. must be the case, and so the conclusion must be that I *have* proven the truth.



kland has been asking you how it does this.



MM, kland asked you a question. Here's the question:



He did not characterize your views as unloving and unkind. He asked you why you would choose a presumed premise which precludes a loving and kind God.

You asked me the following:



In this question you have made the implicit assumption that my view would have God acting contrary to His character because He was forced to do so by circumstances. This is an unwarranted assumption from my point of view, so I explained why. kland's question is no more unreasonable than yours. You should, IMO, answer his question as I did yours, which is to show why, from your point of view, what you perceive to be implicit assumptions of his question are incorrect.

Specifically, you could either argue that you are not choosing the presumed premise kland suggests you choosing, or you could argue that such a premise does not preclude a loving and kind God.

Tom, who wrote that story? It's too bad you cannot cite an inspired passage that unequivocably substantiates your theory. Instead, you post unrelated passages and glean principles you insist applies to every other story in the Bible. Again, it's too bad you cannot post inspired pasages to confirm your theory.

Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer because that's what the sin hardened Jews were expecting. And yet you insist this is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. The Jews didn't know what to do. They weren't eager to kill them. Please, Tom, just post one inspired quote which plainly says this is why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys.

Also, please explain why a loving God would consent to command Moses to kill two people. Why would He give in to pressure like that? The Jews weren't even sure wht to do? Why didn't God take advntage of their uncertainty and denonstrate the truth?