IMO you're not looking at this correctly, as evidenced by the way you insist on phrasing this, despite the numerous times I've pointed out what the SOP said (quoted again below) and requested you to not phrase things this way, unless you're referring to *your* view. If you have your view in mind, go ahead and use this phrasing, and I'll explain why I disagree with your view. If you're asking me about *my* view, then please don't use this way of putting things.



From the SOP:



so I understand you're asking if when the people did this, God caused them pain. No, God did nothing to cause them pain. As the SOP points out, they brought their own suffering upon themselves. The sentence right before this one says:



I don't see how it could say any more clearly that it wasn't God who was doing this to them.



I've stated in a number of places what *I* think, using *my* words. If you're going to ask me questions based on what *you* think, using *your* words, you're going to have to define them.

So if you'd like answer to your question, please answer mine.

So you are saying they misrepresent His character by saying:
-God is too good to punish
-they attributed (striking manifestations of His power) to human or satanic agency
-they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan
-It was this act that sealed their doom

But how does this fit in with, "The Christian churches are fast losing their knowledge of God". Meaning, I realize there may be some churches saying the above, but is that the majority? Am I correct in thinking she was referring to the majority of churches?

Not when they practice them in accordance with His laws. Do you agree?

how does that make sense, mm? divorce is a sin, unless...?

polygamy is a sin, unless....?

Teresa, it is never a sin to live in harmony with the laws of God.

no it is not a sin to live in harmony with the law of God, the 10c.

but polygamy, divorce, murder, etc is a sin no matter how many laws there are set in place to control, or regulate, it.

but that seems incomprehensible to you at the moment, while it is just as incomprehensible to others of us that your picture is true so it would probably be best to just let it go.

Okay.

I found this in 2SM, page 441-:
The human family have brought upon themselves diseases of various forms by their own wrong habits. They have not studied how to live healthfully, and their transgression of the laws of their being has produced a deplorable state of things. The people have seldom accredited their sufferings to the true cause--their own wrong course of action. They have indulged an intemperance in eating, and made a God of their appetite. In all their habits they have manifested a recklessness in regard to health and life; and when, as the result, sickness has come upon them they have made themselves believe that God was the author of it, when their own wrong course of action has brought the sure result. When in distress they send for the doctor, and trust their bodies in his hands, expecting that he will make them well. He deals out to them drugs, the nature of which they know nothing, and in their blind confidence they swallow anything that the doctor may choose to give. Thus powerful poisons are often administered which fetter nature in all her friendly efforts to recover the abuse the system has suffered, and the patient is hurried out of this life.
...
The patient grows worse, and poisonous drugs are more freely administered, until nature is overpowered in her efforts, and gives up the conflict, and the mother dies. She was drugged to death. Her system was poisoned beyond remedy. She was murdered. Neighbors and relatives marvel at the wonderful dealings of providence in thus removing a mother in the midst of her usefulness, at the period when her children need her care so much. They wrong our good and wise heavenly father when they cast back upon him this weight of human woe. Heaven wished that mother to live, and her untimely death dishonored God. The mother's wrong habits, and her inattention to the laws of her being, made her sick. And the doctor's fashionable poisons, introduced into the system, closed the period of her existence, and left a helpless, stricken, motherless flock.
The above is not always the result which follows the doctor's drugging. Sick people who take these drug-poisons do appear to get well. With some, there is sufficient life-force for nature to draw upon, to so far expel the poison from the system that the sick, having a period of rest, recover. But no credit should be allowed the drugs taken, for they only hindered nature in her efforts. All the credit should be ascribed to nature's restorative powers.
...
If the people would reason from cause to effect, and would follow the light which shines upon them, they would pursue a course which would insure health, and mortality would be far less. But the people are too willing to remain in inexcusable ignorance, and trust their bodies to the doctors, instead of having any special responsibility in the matter themselves.

It appears to me in this passage, Ellen White is saying:

• The patient misrepresents God by thinking He brings upon them sickness which they themselves have caused by their own choices.
• Neighbors and relatives misrepresent God by questioning why He would remove a mother from her children when they need her the most.
• Others misrepresent God by crediting drugs to healing some cases when really it is the sufficient life-force which was able to overcome the drugs.

I notice that she did not say the mother was given pain and killed because she didn't follow God's health laws, but that "Heaven wished that mother to live, and her untimely death dishonored God".

MM, how do you reconcile that with what you are trying to say? I'm guessing that you will say that sometimes we misrepresent God by saying he won't harm and destroy people and sometimes we misrepresent God by saying he will harm and destroy people.

Which seems to make no statement. Correct me if I am wrong.

Kland, nice quote. We are truly "fearfully and wonderfully made". Thank you, Jesus! But there is a limit beyond which we cannot continue to abuse our health and recover. However, there are times when God pities our stupidity and miraculously heals us, thereby neutralizing the normal natural cause and effect consequences. So again, thank you, Jesus! Now, let us make good of our good fortune and give up health destroying habits. If we don't, be sure our sins shall find us out - if not here then in judgment.

God will resurrect the wicked, judge them, and then punish them according to their sinfulness. Will He simply let them die again the way they did the first time? For example, will He simply let the cancer ridden smoker die a second time of lung cancer? Of course not! Why bother resurrecting them only to let them die again for the same reasons? It wouldn't accomplish anything useful. It certainly wouldn't teach unfallen beings something they are not already very familiar with. Nor would it add to their safety or security. So, what will cause them to die, and will it satisfy an unfulfilled need?

An interesting topic to consider if God would heal someone in spite of themselves and then raise them to destroy them or if they are not healed, but die, then He raises them to destroy them.

However, I was curious as to how we misrepresent God compared to: how the mother did, how her family did, how others credit drugs to the healing.

Looking over it again, maybe you are saying the patient misrepresents God by saying God was punishing them with disease, but we misrepresent Him by saying God doesn't punish the diseased sinner at the end?