Indeed - as we see in 2Peter 3 "God is not willing for ANY to perish. God desires ALL to come to repentance".

The Lake of Fire and supernatural arrangment for torment and suffering there is not done "because God likes it" -- any more than He "liked" suffering on the cross for all the sins of the world. Recall that Christ said "if it be possible let this cup pass from Me".

my argument is not about what God "likes" in all of this - rather it is in defining the solution for sin that HE made up - the one that has the wicked tormented in the 2nd death and then "destroyed both body and soul".

in Christ,

Bob

I'm not claiming anyone said God likes it. What I'm wanting to understand is how you, or anyone, could think that God is capable of this. Surely you've burned yourself. Wasn't it painful? Can you even imagine how painful it would be to be burned all over your body all at once? If you were so torturing even your worst enemy, wouldn't you stop doing so after a few seconds? Wouldn't that be enough to appease your wrath?

Imagine watching a loved one being burned in the judgment, hearing their shrieks of pain, your Mom, or child, or spouse, or brother. If you had the power to stop the torture, wouldn't you do so? Wouldn't you be crying to God to please put their misery to an end? As the SOP asks, "Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage?"

Does God love our loved ones any less than we do? Of course He loves them more. If we would be incapable of such inhumane treatment of even our enemies, what makes us think God would be capable of treating our loved ones this way, when God loves them infinitely more than we do? If one answers, "This is necessary to satisfy the law," what sort of being would create a law that would constrain one to act so heinously?

However God creates one in Rev 19 and then yet another manufacture event "starting with the wicked as mere dust" - in Rev 20.



Again you view the act of reading a Bible text that does not fit your model as 'entertaining such ideas' as if the choice to read Luke 12:45-48 was the error.

The "tormented in fire and brimstone" text as God states in Rev 14 exists even when we choose not to read that part of the Bible.



This and other texts like it were already quoted here -

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=108797#Post108797

your response is almost as if I "wrote the texts" instead of the actual fact that I simply point to their existence and notice how they do not fit with the model that you have proposed.

The texts do not go away simply because we might agree not to read them. (Not sure if that is why you never deal with them in your responses)

in Christ,

Bob

If you are asking how I could possibly think that God apportions degrees of punishment in hell (the 2nd death lake of fire) then it is in Luke 12:45-48 where the one who :knew his masters will and yet did deeds worthy of flogging shall receive many lashes" (not my words -- God's).

If you are asking how I could possibly think that God torments anyone in the 2nd death lake of fire and brimstone it is in Rev 14:10-11 "tormented with fire and brimstone" - again these are God's Words -- not mine.

If you are asking how I could possibly think that God has to supernaturally CAUSE the dust to become alive - -then cause the great white throne judgment - then cause the lake of fire -- it is in Rev 20 - not my idea -- His.

If you are asking why I think He meticulously manages each supernatural event so that each person suffers the exact amount of time and torment as demanded by the Law for that person's sins -- well we saw it in Matt 18 Christ argues that the person whose "forgiveness is revoked" his handed over to the torturers to pay the full debt owed.

As we both know full well - Ellen White agrees with this by the way ..







It does no good to turn from these facts and the argue as if by reading them - and agreeing to still notice them -- I am the source of the information, or that it is something "I wish".



Agreed. But what is in discussion is not my imagination - rather it is what does the text actually say? I also "imagine" that the electric chair is horrible -- but that does not change the law or the state. Those death sentences remain law even when I imagine them to be painful. My imagination changes nothing.



I have to conclude that this manufactured event is indeed emotionally scarring for the saints. But think about it -- the event does not happen for the benefit of the wicked. It takes place only for the benefit of the surviving intelligent universe as the last act that ensures that sin will not rise again.



Agreed. But the appeal to emotion changes nothing in the text. It only shows what pain this will be for both God and the universe that watches it. However God is VERY clear that they "are TORMENTED.. IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb and of His Holy ones" Rev 14:10.

The Bible is very clear on the point that this painful event will be watched - as painful as it is.

in Christ,

Bob

I am struck with the pattern here of my handing you text and reference from EGW - and your handing me emotion and asking about what I would wish were the case instead.

I don't understand how that method solves the problem for your model.

in Christ,

Bob

does God have emotions? i mean other than anger and hate, like us. or is He cold and stoical like statues, perhaps like satan?

but i dont understand how you are reading "God will kill us" in galations 3 and romans 3. i couldnt find that concept so im wondering how you do?

as for isaiah, do you read that to say that God killed Jesus?

Given there's no need for a manufactured event to kill them, one would need to question the assertion that God creates one, since that would be illogical.



I'm not arguing against the texts, but your interpretation of them. You're acting as if just because you read texts in a certain way, that means they must be that way. But there's an alternative, which is that you interpretation of the texts are wrong. That's possible. Just because you understand things in a certain way, does not mean they must be that way.

As to dealing with the texts, I am dealing with them. I'm dealing with them by asking you how it is you think God would be capable of the acts you ascribe to Him, given His revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ.

There are those who take the same texts you are citing in Revelation and conclude that God will torture the wicked for all eternity. After all, it says the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever and they have no rest day or not. Regarding this interpretation, EGW responds:



You're presenting essentially the same viewpoint, and her comments apply just as much to this viewpoint as to the same viewpoint that has God doing these things for eternity as opposed to "many days" or "many years."

Since this is an important point, I'll develop it a bit. Reading GC 535-536, one can see that a certain interpretation of Revelation is rejected, not on the basis of an analysis of the text, but on the basis of the character of God and His followers. She refutes the teaching by pointing out that God is simply not the way that such an interpretation of the text would have Him to be, nor are His followers. She refutes it by citing Exek. 33:11. I'm following the same path.

Why is this path valid? Because the same principles are involved regardless of whether one views the torment to be for many days as opposed to forever. The point is that God is not capable of doing, even for a moment, the cruelty being suggested. She refutes the argument by pointing out that "cruelty is Satanic." Cruelty for "many days," is Satanic just as cruelty for ever is. God is no more capable of being cruel for a few days than He is to be cruel for eternity.

So the overlying problem of the interpretation is that it has God acting cruelly. No one can doubt, as Ellen White has identified, that burning people with fire, causing them to shriek in pain, is cruel. This theory has God acting worse that the Nazi torturers or those who specialized in this treatment during the inquisition. Imagine the confessions possible if these people had the power God has to supernaturally extend life so they could be burned alive without dying for days on end.

Actually, they are not God's words. God has not put Himself on trial in either the rhetoric or the logic of the Bible. But this is the subject for another topic.

As to Luke 12, EGW comments as follows:



Your interpretation here is suffering from the same problem as in the other texts, which is to have God act out of character. For the benefit of those who view God incorrectly, God, in mercy, presents messages for the purpose of leading one into a relationship with Him, even with this faulty perspective. Actually God does this for all of us, because none of us view Him as He is in truth. All of our conceptions of His character fall far short of His true goodness. So God takes us where we are, and leads us along. If we start with the conviction that God is good, as revealed in Christ, that will help lead us along the path of discovery.



Again, these are not God's words, as God has not placed Himself on trial in either the rhetoric or the logic of the Bible (1SM 21). God has revealed Himself through the Word, Jesus Christ.



The overriding purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ, in whom God is fully revealed.



What I'm asking is how you think God is capable of acting with the cruelty you ascribe to Him. As to your claim that "we both know full well that Ellen White agrees with this," this seems rather affected. It should be obvious, given my arguments against the ideas you've been presenting, that I by know means "know" that Ellen White agrees with this. I've been using her writings to argue against the view you've been presenting!

If she does not view God to be capable of acting with the cruelty you as suggesting, then she could not have shared these views. That she does not so view God is made clear through the whole of her writings.

Again, from the COL chapter cited above:



Please note especially the last paragraph. GC 541 expresses the same thought, pointing out that the exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves.

What is being described here is a natural process. Those who reject God unfit themselves for heaven by rejecting the Holy Spirit. Eventually the mind becomes hardened to spiritual things, and God's principles, character and love become an enigma.



It's not a question of turning away from facts, but of selectively reading certain texts that would present God in a negative way. Just as with Scripture, when dealing with the SOP, one should compare what she wrote on a subject with other statements. For example, she writes:



Note she says this is not an arbitrary, or "manufactured" (to use your word) act of power on the part of God which causes the destruction of the wicked. Their death, including the suffering involved, is a result of their choices. She emphasizes this again and again in this quote, over a half-dozen times.

Had God "left" Satan, he would have perished, because death it the inevitable result of sin.

The whole point of these paragraphs is to make clear that the death of the wicked is not something God does to them, not a manufactured punishment, but the consequence of the choices they have made.



If you have the text say that God acts cruelly, that can't be what the text is saying. Cruelty is Satanic.



But it is for their benefit!





As seen above, this assertion isn't correct.



I'm not appealing to emotion, but to logic. If God loves our loved ones more than we do, then it is logical to conclude that He would not be capable of doing the cruel things you are ascribing to Him. You're interpreting the text in a way that would have God acting completely out of character with Jesus Christ's revelation, which is illogical.

I asked you no questions whatsoever about what you wished were the case, although I see nothing wrong with this tack. Such questions can be enlightening in regards to what they reveal about a person. At any rate, to date, I haven't asked you what you wished to be the case.

Again, I didn't hand you emotion, but logic. The logic of the question is that if you cannot bear the thought of doing the things suggested to even your worst enemy, then there must be something wrong with the idea that God would do these things to our loved ones.



The model I'm suggesting is founded on the principle that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. The only problems I see in this model are ones brought up by our own ignorance and hardness of heart which would have God be other than what Jesus Christ revealed Him to be.

I'm not singling you out here, by the way, for I freely admit that my own views of God's character are far inferior to His beauty of character, as revealed by Jesus Christ.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the wicked will not suffer or die in the judgment, but there's different ways of viewing this event. One way is as Ty Gibson has laid out, which is that punishment is organic to sin itself. I believe he's lit on to a key which allows us to make sense of the entire matter.

If we view punishment as organic to sin, then it makes perfect sense that the wicked would suffer in proportion to the sin they've committed. Indeed, nothing could be more logical than this.

Another consequence of this view is that it has God acting as Savior, as One who would rescue us from the hideous results of sin. This is entirely in harmony with all that Jesus Christ lived and taught.