It seems to me it does (answer the question). If one takes the point of view that the fire came from Jesus (or God), I don't see how the things I quoted would fit in.

The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits, so the fact that the Bible labels it the "fire of God" doesn't imply that God caused it, any more than God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites means that God sent fiery serpents upon them.

In an earlier post I spoke of different paradigms involved. I don't think looking at isolated, individual texts has an impact on one's paradigm. I think considering the character of God does, however.

One could argue that looking at isolated, individual texts is a way to "consider God's character," but I think, apart from Jesus Christ's revelation, this is more likely to confuse than enlighten. If we look at Christ's life and teaching, the idea that He would zap someone with fire seems incomprehensible. I certainly can't think of anything He said or did that would lead one to such a conclusion.

I spoke, in an earlier post, of my experience in coming to the conclusion that the SDA view was correct in terms of the immortality of the soul. I think the same principles applies.

I think this is the part that isn't understood. The idea is that God's power can only be shown if He is the actual one doing the zapping. But God's power is displayed every bit as much in His prevention of destruction. Indeed, to prevent destruction takes *more* power than then one who would do the destruction.

Don't you think it would be rather odd to have God and Satan doing the same thing, maiming, hurting, and causing destruction? There would be no way of who was doing what.

How about the following:



It seems to me what you're suggesting is diametrically opposed to what we read here. At least, I don't see how it would fit together.

If one considers the life and teachings of Jesus in general, it's difficult to see a life more anti-violence than His. If someone smites you on the cheek, turn the other cheek. This is what He taught and love. It's contrary to human nature, but seems to fit with God's nature, and how God actually acts. So it seems to me, at any rate.

As to the plagues in Revelation, as I said, I don't think we can know precisely how they will play out. So we can't really say if they will be permitted by God, sent by God, or a mix of the two (that is, some permitted, some sent).
However, the idea that directly removing life is always cruel and is incompatible with God's mercy does not make any sense to me. So, if I have a pet, and this pet gets an incurable disease and is suffering terribly, if I kill him I'm heartless, mercyless and cruel.
And I don't understand how someone can think that killing is always cruel, but can't see that letting die is no less cruel (and in fact can be, sometimes, more cruel).

Depending on how "directly removing life" is understood, I agree. For example, Moses comes to mind.

The idea that God would act cruelly, though, causing a painful or violent death is another matter, however.



What's being suggested is more along the lines of your causing the disease and making the pet to suffer terribly, rather than alleviating such suffering. Recall the characteristics of the plagues. The descriptions are not of merciful, painless deaths ending the sufferings of those experiencing the plagues.

Moses? God didn't remove Moses' life.


All deaths are violent, because death is unnatural.
You said God uses nature to cause death, but all deaths caused by nature are violent.
Besides, as I said, removing life is no more cruel than letting people die.


No, in the analogy the "disease" is sin.

Scripture says:



If his natural force was not abated, why did he die?



This is your reasoning?

A.All death is unnatural.
B.All things unnatural are violent.
C.Therefore all death is violent.

Regarding death and nature, I wrote the following in response to MM:



I quoted this in detail, to make clear my thinking.



If the life is removed by causing the person whose life is being removed a great deal of pain, that could be cruel, don't you think?



No, it's not. Why is it not? Because your analogy doesn't correspond to what I'm saying. You're analogy sounds like euthanasia, and involves the painless death of a being who is suffering. What I was speaking against is the causing of pain to one who wasn't suffering, which is why I said what's being suggested is more along the lines of your causing the disease and making the pet to suffer terribly.

To make this clear, it's being suggested that God will do things like cause those who suffer the plagues to suffer boils and in other ways suffer greatly. That is, it is God who is directly causing them to suffer excruciating pain. What I am claiming is that God is not like this. He does not get vengeance by making people suffer excruciating pain, nor does He establish His justice by so doing, nor punish those who reject Him.

This is not at all like your euthanizing a pet who is suffering. It would be like causing the pet to suffer, however.

these seem like good questions to me. they got me thinking. about things ive wondered about before.

but one thing seems to be that we need to differentiate between ourselves and God. between what we can/would do and what God can/would do.

God isnt cruel. we may not know, or really believe that, but He isnt. but He allowed the antediluvians to drown, or drowned them-to appease both sides, because i want to make a point.

so why didnt He just take back His breath of life and let them fall where they dropped? could it be because He gave them every chance to repent til their dying breath? that the flood was the only thing that could convince them, or finally wake them up, to eternal interests?

your other points have me thinking, roseangela, and i would like to explore them but i didnt want to get off-track on this.

i would also like to explore why God had/s a covering cherub to veil His glory before sin happened.

but isnt that getting into "God and satan cooperating together"? it does seem like it has to be one or the other. or maybe we havent explored-prayed and studied-it out more?

im doing an integration on the 2nd and 3rd comings and one minute it seems very clear its satan causing everything, the next it seems just as clear that its God.

with all due respect i think roseangela is right. all death is violent, with the exception, maybe, of aaron and moses, who the Lord laid to rest.

there never was supposed to be any death, ever.

again i have to disagree. i never found euthanasia to be completely painless, for my pets or me.

i think death is painful however it happens.

that is the point, i believe, that is the most important whether "God" does it, or allows it.