1-3 are rhetorical.

Regarding 4, God manifested Himself as a fire.

Regarding 5, here's the definition of attribute:



What specifically do you have in mind?

IMO it would be more accurate to say that God has fire-like qualities than to say that fire is an attribute of God. I would say things like honesty, faithfulness, and righteousness are attributes of God.



You may open a topic on this if you wish to discuss it. I'm not saying I'll participate, but it's possible. kland also might have some observations.

Please don't attack me personally.

I don't understand what you're thinking here. I've always agreed with Ellen White's statement. I'm not arguing against it now, nor have I ever.

To be clear, here's the statement:



I've said the light of the glory of God is the revelation of the character of God, and that the context makes this clear. I've said this all along, and still say it. I've said this can't be literal fire because literal fire does not give life to the righteous.

It seems to me we've digressed a bit from the topic at hand, which is the suffering the lost experience when they are resurrected in the second resurrection. My main argument has been against the idea that God causes the wicked to suffer by setting them on fire, like a torch, and acting supernaturally to prevent them dying until hours or days have passed. It would also be necessary for God to act supernaturally to enable them to suffer for more than a few seconds, since the fire would destroy the nerve endings which perceive pain. I believe this portrays God's character in a horrendous way.

The SOP tells us that suffering and death are inevitable where there is sin. This points to sin as the cause of suffering and death. There are many statements of hers where she speaks of sin and Satan as doing things which cause suffering and death to humans, and speak of Satan's activity in trying to present God as the origin of these things. For example:



There is an important principle involved here, which is how we view God, and His activities, will be vastly different depending upon whether we see Him as warning us as to what He will do to us if we don't do as He says as opposed to trying to rescue us from the inevitable consequences of rejecting the paths of agape. How can we not fear someone who is capable and willing of setting us on fire for days if we don't do what He says? How can this idea not adversely impact our relationship with God?

Yes Green Cochoa, please don't attack Tom personally. If you cannot refrain from derisive comments, please have the integrity to post using you real identity. If Tom, Daryl, asygo, Mike, Mark, Colin Standish et al. can stand behind their words, you can do the same. It's disheartening to see such tactics and cutting sarcasm coming from a missionary. Please remember that all our words are recorded in Heaven. The Gospel is not a debate or an inquisition.

Thank you for your kind rebuke, Gordon. I apologize for speaking rashly.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

I'm sure there are. But the existence of alternative explanations does not negate the possibility GC proposed. You'll have to come up with better reasons if you want to refute GC's theory.


There are several possible reasons, our lack of knowledge or imaginations notwithstanding.

God made the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, I'm sure we all agree. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they became fatally sick.

The saying, "God made dirt, so dirt don't hurt" is logically flawed.

I didn't say you always do it. But you do it.

You rejected GC's belief without even asking him why he believed it. And so far, you have not shown why his theory cannot be true; all you can show is that there are other theories. You and I both know that is not sufficient.

More importantly is your contention that God does not command us to do things for which we see no reason. In short, you will reject God's command if you don't know why He is commanding it.

The salient point is not that you don't change your mind. The issue is that you base your obedience on human understanding rather than strict submission to the divine will. IOW, you will change your mind, but only if it makes sense to you, as opposed to because God says so. That's the real danger.


You left out the rest of it:


That's another of your hermeneutical flaws: Unwarranted universal application of correct principles. I think I mentioned that.

What I mean is that you apply principles in places where they don't necessarily apply. You say you are using common sense to reject the idea that God created those quails. Is it really common sense to think that the quails were at sea, and the wind got them while flying around out there?


What is likely is not necessarily true. I'm sure you can think of examples.

I thought you were there one who brought up Saul and David.

Anyway, the principle is question is this: Since we know that the Bible sometimes describes God's allowing something as God doing it, are we free to apply that anywhere we think it applies?


I assume you believe Satan will be destroyed in this manner - essentially, God doesn't destroy him, but merely allows "destruction to occur" from one or more of the thousand unseen dangers.

I also assume you believe that had Satan failed to tempt anyone else to sin, and is the only sinner, his destruction would still be as certain, and happen also by God's removing His protection.

What this means is that the universe God created is inherently dangerous, and we can survive only by His protection from the dangers He created. If, for whatever reason, God removes His protection, unseen dangers will destroy us, without any participation from God at all.

It seems to me that creating poisonous quails are trivial in comparison to creating a poisonous universe from which we require constant protection.

Where in all the recorded history of Jesus on earth did He ever make something that was harmful unless he protected people from it?


1. Satan wants us to worship him. Does that mean that God cannot do the same? Since Satan wants to be "like the Most High" it should not be surprising if he copies some things.

2. Like the bad things that happened to Korah and his friends? Satan was really the one who did it, even though Moses and EGW said God did it? You are falling into the same trap as the Ancient Israelites.

3. Are you sure you know God's character well enough to be able to reliably say what He will or will not do? Holy saints have been known to say "His ways are past finding out." Yet, you found out? To use the "did Jesus ever do that" line is another example of the unwarranted universal application problem. Jesus never slayed the wicked, but He will when the time comes. There are new things yet to be revealed.

4. I never saw your answer to a question I asked long ago: Was Satan forced out of heaven, or did he fly out of there willingly?

5. The earth will be destroyed by fire and made new. Satan is responsible for this destruction? I don't think so. It is more accurate to say that Satan was the first to make himself subject to destruction.

6. Was the fire which destroyed Korah's friends, the fire that came from the cloud, one of these thousand dangers? When God told Moses that anyone going up Sinai while He was there should be stoned or shot with arrows, were these unseen stones and arrows which were just going to start flying around on their own?

While the principle you hold is sometimes applicable, it is not universally applicable.

Sin does not destroy itself. God destroys sin.

That God created the quails to feed the Israelites? Why do you think I should have asked him about this?



As I said, one could say that God specially created Peter, or the donkey upon which Jesus rode, or anything else. How could something like this be shown not to be true?



I've cited the following several times:



Here are some others:







It seems to me clear that these statements are contradicting the idea that God would have us believe things without having a reason to do so. He gives us evidence for everything He would have us do or believe.

This attribute of God lies at the heart of His character. He wants us to have an intelligent faith, based on evidence and reason. That's the kind of God He is.



I disagree. I think this concept of God's character is in error, and, to use your word, dangerous. Any faith not based on reason or evidence is dangerous. God always gives us a reason, and evidence, for that which He would have us believe or do. It says undesirable things about His character to suppose otherwise.

An insight into this aspect of God's character is presented here:



God is pleased to have us consider evidence, to have an intelligent faith, to use our reason in His worship.

Why? It's an extremely fanciful theory. The onus is on one who has such theories to make his point.



There was nothing wrong the fruit. This analogy doesn't apply, unless you're saying that there was nothing wrong with the quails the people ate, and their getting fevers from eating the quail had nothing to do with the quail being unhealthful.



Dirt isn't food. If one is saying that God specially created food for someone to eat, and those who ate the food got sick from eating the food which God specially created, that raises some questions about God's character.