Good point. It is clear they will think they deserve to be in heaven, that heaven is for people like them. No indication they loathe the idea of being in heaven. That comes much later.

Makes sense to me, GC. This observation has been made before on this forum and Tom responded by suggesting the righteous attributes of God's character is what would have destroyed Ellen White. Although for some reason the same thing is not true of Jesus. That is, she was able to see His form and glory without being destroyed. Don't remember how Tom explains why.

Know what I mean?

Do you believe God is eternally a physical Being? Or, do you think He is only a spiritual Being? If so, how do you explain the difference?


Are you unwilling to restate and clarify your position? If so, please post a link where you clearly explain it. Thank you. The details are fussy. I seem to recall you saying something like God simply permitted naturally occurring elements to discharge something akin to lightning and it killed them.


I imagine it playing out in two different phases: 1) the first death, and 2) the second death.


Would you please repost a summary of what you believe? Who or what do you think ignited the fire? What do you think was the fuel source? Were they burned alive? Did they suffer intense pain? Etc.


The details are fuzzy. I recall you saying something like God simply withdrew His protection and permitted the oil and coal in the area to burst into flames and to burn them alive but so quickly that they died a relatively painless death. For some reason you do not hold God responsible for the fire or for their death.

The quail were already in existence. God didn't create them specially, as Jesus did with the wine. God gave the people what they wanted.



Satan is the author of disease and death. Those who died instantly would not have been killed by the disease, but that doesn't mean God killed them. For God to have killed them would have been playing into Satan's hands, as Satan seeks to misrepresent God as doing what he does.






It did seem like an odd analogy, for someone from your point of view to come up with. I think that's why it surprised kland. It's an analogy that he or I would have been more apt to come up with. Well, thanks for the idea! I think it fits quite well for our point of view (i.e., kland's and mine).



1.He could educate those who are being tempted, so they don't fall into temptation. It's not God's usual practice to kill those who tempt. He didn't kill Satan, but allowed him to tempt Eve.

2.This is assuming it's necessary for God to destroy people in order for them to be done away with. But it's not. It's sufficient for God to simply withdraw his protection from the "thousand dangers, all of them unseen" that God is protecting them from.



This is a sufficient mechanism to destroy those whom God wishes to destroy. It is not necessary for God to behave as Satan, the destroyer, in order to bring about destruction.



This doesn't fit because it doesn't bring out the important point that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us.





It's the other way around, it seems to me. I'm focused on pleading the cause of God, who has been misrepresented by Satan, and you're repeating Satan's misrepresentations. That's how it seems to me.



It doesn't appear you're bearing in mind that God is constantly protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. For someone to be destroyed, it's enough for God to withdraw His protection. He doesn't need to take destructive action Himself, which would be contrary to His character.



God seeks to rescue us from sin, which would destroy us. Our enemies are sin and Satan. These are the destructive elements. At times, God permits these destructive elements to destroy. He has no need to, and to do so would be to mimic the enemy, who is the destroyer.

I don't think I said this. It doesn't sound like me.



What? Didn't you point out the angel said she would be destroyed if she saw God? Why are you now saying she saw God's "form and glory"? Why are you saying she did something Jesus didn't do? In saying the same thing is not true of Jesus, do you mean that Jesus would have been destroyed had He done the same thing EGW did? It sounds like this is what you're suggesting. Perhaps I've misunderstood you. If not, and you're really saying this, doesn't it strike you as rather odd to think such a thing?

I pointed out several times that God existed before matter did. Do you understand "physical" to mean something other than being comprised of matter? If not, it should be obvious that God could hardly be comprised of matter if matter didn't exist.

Regarding Nabad and Abihu, you can try the search utility.



It would be interesting to see this fleshed out.

Regarding S&G, I've said I thought it likely the destruction of the cities of the plain was due to volcanic activity. Here's something that may be of some interest:

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi58.htm

How much do you know about quail? Are you a birdwatcher by any chance? Do you know where quail live? Have you seen where these quail came from, according to scripture? Do you not understand the magnitude of this miracle, as even Moses doubted God could do it? Do you understand the sheer numbers we are dealing with here?

Do some research, and you'll know why I firmly believe God created those quail.
There is no question but that Satan represents God in a wrong light. Naturally, it is easier to do this when he has some facts on his side, and he can merely distort them. One of the facts, in this case, is that God has exercised justice and judgment, resulting in the deaths of lawbreakers. Satan distorts this to make it appear as though God is a tyrant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Satan does the same thing with God's law. God has a law, and has required us to keep it. Satan does not like the law, so he represents it as being unfair, and its requirements impossible. Does this mean that if God makes a law, it was a Satanic thing? No, no! God is the author of the Law, and with it, the Author of its penalty--and the One who ensures His laws are kept. Why would Satan wish to enforce a law he deems unfair? Nay, but Satan cries foul at the legitimate enforcement of this law which he hates. Certainly, Satan takes pleasure in the deaths of people. But when his best tools among them are destroyed, to prevent them from gaining further access to God's people, Satan cries foul. Of course, his accusations are without foundation. God is just.


Regarding your #1 point, God has and does seek to educate people away from their errors. However, not all wish to accept His wisdom. Many wish to do their own thing. Why didn't God educate Lucifer away from his rebellion? That question is tantamount to asking why didn't God remove the freedom of choice.

Those whom God destroyed posed too great a risk to His people, and had to be dealt with. They were rebellious and incorrigible, and had no interest in God's wisdom or way.

Tom, the problem with your picture of God is that you have made a fast and hard rule which cannot be broken, in order for God's character to remain untarnished. You believe God never kills. However, God has indeed done so. What will you do when you realize the fact of this one day? How will this alter your image of God? I am 100% certain that you will yet learn the truth, because God will reveal these things at the judgment.

You do not answer Mike regarding Nadab and Abihu because you do not have a plausible answer as to how they could have died unless God had done it. In fact, you have no answer to the direct statement of Mrs. White, attributing their deaths directly to God. She said "God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them." The Bible says "And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord."

If you believe God Himself to be one of those "thousand dangers," you are sorely misled and deceived. God should never be accounted as a "danger!" This is exactly what Satan wishes us to believe. However, God _IS_ a protector, shield, and defender of His own. There is a limit to His mercy, and yet, how great His mercy! It seems unfathomable that God would actually allow all that He allows--but it is with a purpose. The universe will be so sick of sin when this experiment has ended, that no one will ever, ever, ever consider it again.


See my response above. You are not doing well to liken God to a danger. Full stop. To avoid saying you are doing so, is to say that you do not accept a plain "thus saith the Lord" in the Bible and in Ellen White. The Bible and Ellen White are clear that God slew Nadab and Abihu.

If you try to make me believe that Satan can hurl lightnings from the presence of the Lord, then truly Satan is God's imp and servant. That would make God into a being of Satan's ilk. Yet that is exactly where your logic and arguments on this topic lead. I make no apology for speaking so straightforwardly, as this discussion has gone on quite long enough without resolution. I frankly doubt that you will change your views. But others may read here, and be under the influence of your views instead of accepting what the Bible says.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That website is full of error, so if you're leaning on it, you're leaning on a broken reed.

1) The 1628 BC date falls about 200 years after Abraham's death, or almost 300 years after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
2) It misquotes the Bible.
3) It strings together a bunch of verses from Isaiah which are out of context and unrelated whatsoever to Sodom and Gomorrah, trying to prove what happened to those cities.
4) It tries to use the volcanic eruption of Santorin to lend support to the "hand of God" seen in the time of Moses and the plagues--yet, according to the dates provided for this eruption, it would have occurred shortly after Joseph's death, well over a century before the time of Moses and the plagues.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You're saying that God created the quail? That's quite an assumption to make!



This seems to be saying that God brought forth a wind which brought the quails from another place to the place where the Israelites were. If you can read into this that God created the quail, it makes me wonder what other things you might be reading into other portions of Scripture.

It seems like the point you raised previously would be valid against this idea. If God created the quail, how could they have caused fevers and disease? He wouldn't have created defective quail, would He?



It's actually worse than this. It's not merely that Satan distorts the truth, to make God appear worse than He actually is, but He presents God as doing things which He does not do, which are in harmony with his own character, but not God's. It's not simply a matter of degree involved here, but God's order is completely different than Satan's.

Satan is the destroyer. God is the restorer.

Force is not a principle of God's government. It is to be found only in the government of the enemy.

These are matters of distortions or degree, but complete differences in principles and character. We see the true character of God revealed by Jesus Christ.



What Satan really doesn't like is God, so he misrepresents His character. He presents the law as if it were arbitrary requirements on the part of God, as opposed to promised blessings for those who follow its wise counsels. He presents the Lord as arbitrarily sending disease and death upon those who break it.



No, this isn't right. Satan is the author of sin and all its results.



Death is one of the results of sin. Death is the punishment of sin. Since Satan is the author of sin, "and all its results," it follows that Satan is the author of death, not God.



The law isn't arbitrarily enforced. It's Satan's idea that God arbitrarily inflicts those who break it with disease and death, as seen in the above quote. But the truth is that those who disregard the wise law and its counsels bring out the sure result of disease and death upon themselves.

It's like smoking. Smoking causes death because of what it is by nature, not because God arbitrarily smites those who smoke with cancer or other diseases.



Satan represents God as arbitrarily inflicting those who disobey His law with disease and death.



The issue isn't simply Satan's crying foul, but with misrepresenting God's character, and causing people to think God is doing things for which he (Satan) and sin are responsible. It's a sad thing that he's been so successful at this. This is in spite of the fact that Jesus Christ has shown us precisely what God is like.

I'll stop here, as this is already rather long, and continue separately.

I'm 100% certain that your view of things is incorrect. I'm not saying there aren't errors in what I think. But I'm sure your ideas are incorrect. What will you do when you're shown the truth?

Better yet, what do you think is gained by asking questions like this? I can't imagine why you would think there is some point to these sorts of comments.

If you wish to make some sort of argument, do so in a reasonable way, by presenting an argument with evidence and reasoning. Your gratuitous insistence that certain things you believe are true with no evidence cited is pointless.



No, I didn't answer it because I'm tired of the discussion. I spent months and dozens if not hundreds of posts discussing this, and he can't even remember what I said. Also, I don't see the point in it.



Sure I have an answer to that, which I presented. Perhaps kland would wish to discuss this with you. I don't see what this has to do with the subject of this topic.



Isn't this more in line with what you think? My thinking is that God is like Jesus Christ, who never harmed anybody. Why in the world would you think I think God is one of the thousand dangers? Are you trying to be funny?



I agree with this. Isn't it your idea that God sets people on fire to make them suffer? And kills them? Do you not think this is a danger? It seems to me that you are indicting your own position.



So gracious is God, He even protects those who aren't His own.





If I've been saying that God does not kill, nor inflict with disease, nor destroy, and you say God does these things, what sense does it make for you to be saying that I shouldn't liken God to a danger? This is like the pot calling snow black.



It's also clear that God slew Saul.



Only if God were a destroyer, right? If God is not a destroyer, then Satan, by destroying, would acting contrary to God's will, wouldn't he?



If you wish to influence others, I think you'd have a better chance of doing so by presenting well-reasoned arguments with evidence.

Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, I just typed "Sodom Gomorrah volcanic" and that was the first thing that popped up. Here's something else I came across (http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/sodom-and-gomorrah.asp)



Here's something else: