Because a thing is unnatural does not make it violent! Both law and medicine recognize the difference between "natural death" (or "death by natural causes") and "violent deaths".

It's certainly true that there was never supposed to be any death, ever, and it could certainly be argued that any death is unnatural, but that's a far cry from arguing that all deaths are violent. To see this, let's consider the definition of "violent," which should make the point clear:



And even if one did want to call all death "violent death," that would in no way affect the points I was making, which have to do with things God is actually (supposedly) doing. It makes no difference how these things are labeled!



The whole point of euthanasia is to bring about death in as painless a way as possible. The plagues are not depicting this sort of thing.



This isn't anything like euthanasia! Who's responsible for this? Is this something God is actively doing, or that God permits to happen?



Agreed!

i probably didnt make myself clear.

my point didnt involve God one way or the other.

my point is that death, to me, is "violent" regardless of how one dies. but we do tend to categorize deaths so i can understand the misunderstanding of what im trying to say.

the "violence" can be just mental. trauma? may be a better word. but i think even for an elderly person dying of natural causes for them it is "violent".

even a person who dies in their sleep we cant really say they died peacefully, even tho it appears so, because no one is able to come back and tell us.

just something that the discussion made me think about. not trying to take away from your points about God.

Did Satan leave heaven of his own accord? Was he convinced that he didn't really want to be there, and decided to leave on his own?

Lazarus did!

Jude says he (and his followers) "left their habitation." The SOP speaks of Satan's "leaving the immediate presence of the Father."

From "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" there's the following interesting comment:



The verse in Revelation dealing with Satan's being cast down is interpreted as having to do with a loss of influence on Satan's part. As his disguise was taken away, the holy angels wanted nothing to do with him. Before he had some access, such as we see in Job.

I think Satan would like to have the power of God, but doesn't want anything to do with His principles, nor those who do.

Certainly the idea that God would use force to compel Satan to leave heaven would be problematic, given statements like the following:

Teresa, we had an interesting discussion some years ago where many of the principles touched on here were examined and presented in more detail. Take a look at it here if you can.


Perhaps a new thread could be created about this topic.

So you think that the death resulting from a heart attack or an asthma attack is not violent? These are natural causes, but I can see little difference, for instance, between an asthma attack and a gas chamber or death by hanging.


When I brought up the analogy of euthanasia, I was referring to the motivation for causing the death, not to the pain involved in it.


One would suppose that in an afflictive situation the person would turn to God, so whether God is sending the plagues or permitting them, they prove definitively that these people are incapable of repenting.

Here again is the definition of "violent"



So such deaths are not violent.



If you slip around a pool, and hit your head, and fall into the pool and drown, that's not a violent death. If, however, someone bonks you on the head with a club and dumps you in the pool, that is.



I wasn't taking issue with the motivation of God's supposed actions, but with the actions themselves; specifically, with the idea that God would directly cause excruciatingly painful, violent deaths.



I think the premise here is questionable, and I don't see the reason for it's being brought up. What leads one to repentance is not affliction, but the goodness of God (Romans 2:4).

But this wasn't something I've been discussing. I've been pointing out that I don't believe that God's directly causing people excruciating pain and killing them is in harmony with His character. I think this is made clear by Jesus Christ's life and teachings.

But your physical sensations will be the same, and the distinction, in this sense, is artificial. Now take for instance the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. There is no painless death, so either you must believe that it wasn’t God who caused their deaths, or that He causes pain and suffering, because in all deaths (whether natural or “violent”) there is some degree of pain and suffering.


There may be suffering before a death occurs (and this is true of both natural and “violent” deaths), but in death itself the suffering takes just some seconds. After that the brain turns itself off. So what are you referring to? Sufferings that precede death?


It’s obvious that affliction may lead people to repentance. What happened in Nineveh is proof of that.


Disease and death can achieve purposes. Gehazi's and Uzziah's leprosy had a purpose to achieve in their lives and in the lives of others (2 Ki 5:27; 2 Chron 26:20). The death of Ananias and Sapphira also had a purpose to achieve.

Such "artificial" distinctions determine whether people are hanged for murder.



Everything seems to follow from your assertion that "there is no painless death." Can you establish that assertion? For example, when a person dies in their sleep, that would seem to me to be a painless death.



Sufferings that precede death is the only possibility, isn't it?



I agree that God can work His purposes despite disease or death, if this is what you have in mind. I don't believe that God kills people or inflicts them with disease to work His purposes, if that's what you're saying.