No, I didn't. I see no need to discuss the topic of whether God kills or destroys in connection with the suffering of the lost.



If it's a general principle, then yes, of course. For example, we are told that Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Well, death and disease are the results of sin. Therefore Satan is the author of these things. So to say that God causes these things is to say that God does things of which Satan is the author. I think this is an incorrect idea. God is not dependent upon that which Satan has created. This is, I believe, a principle. The kingdom of God is completely different than the kingdom of Satan. They operate upon different principles. That God does not use compelling power or force to achieve His purposes is not something which is sometimes true, but is a principle of His government. This is precisely how the SOP presents this idea: The Lord's principles are not of this order. Compelling power is to be found only under the government of the enemy.

Regarding the 3SM 217.2 quote, to say I left out the rest of it is leaving out the fact that I quoted it many times with the part that you quoted. Do I have to quote it that way every time? Does the principle, as stated, not apply? Or do you think it only applies in a qualified way? That is, the principle is:



Is it your contention that this means, "God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense, if we are considering circumstances altered by situations. In some other cases, it's OK not to reason from common sense."?



"That's another of your hermeneutical flaws:" This isn't put very well, I don't think. It's too personal.

If we take the principle that force is not a principle of God's government, that His principles are not of this order, how could this not be universal? If God doesn't act in a certain way, because it is not according to His character to do so, how could this not be universal? For example, does God sometimes lie? Why not? Because it's contrary to His character. If it's contrary to His character not to lie, then applying this universally is warranted, is it not?



You really don't see the common sense involved here? If not, there's probably no point in discussing it. If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't think common sense is something one can prove by argument.

We could, however, discuss the implications in believing that God specially created quail that, when eaten, resulted in disease and death.

I think I may have messed up the response to your posts, Arnold, getting parts of one post mixed up with another. I'm pretty sure, at least, that I'm correctly responding to your points. (as opposed to mixing up your posts with someone else's). At any rate, I apologize for any confusion.



I don't believe that God has to arbitrarily destroy Satan, or that He does so, but rather God leaves Satan to reap the full results of sin. DA 764 says that had God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin at the beginning, Satan would have perished, but it would not have been understood that death is the inevitable result of sin. It seems clear to me this is saying God would have been misunderstood as killing Satan. So it hardly makes sense that at that end God actually does kill Satan, as opposed to leaving him to reap the full result of his sin, which inevitably results in death.



As I recall, the way the SOP puts it is that had God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished. So I believe God would have done that, once there were no more creatures in the valley of decision in regards to God's character.



Absolutely not! *Satan* is the author of sin and all its results, including danger. The danger in the universe came as a result of sin.



Assuming the existence of sin. Again, this is not the way God created things.



Certainly the latter would be worse than the former, but neither would be trivial. Both would involve God's character in a negative way, which is not a trivial thing.



Jesus never made anything harmful period. Harmful things come from sin. There is no danger in obedience.



Regarding 1., I think equating the worship of God with destroying people is problematic. We're specifically told that Satan is the destroyer and God is the restorer.



I never said Satan did anything to Korah and his friends. I don't understand you're repeated misrepresentations of things I've said. I find this very objectionable. I've repeatedly asked to be quoted for this very reason. And when I do so, that is objected to. This is very frustrating.

Feel free to disagree with ideas I present, but please be fair in your presentations of my ideas. Please don't just make stuff up, and credit these things to me, and then disagree with that. That's simply not fair.



What I said in 3 was, "to do so would be acting contrary to God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ." Do you disagree with this statement? If so, the thing to do to disprove it would be to present something regarding God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ which is contrary to what I asserted.



I answered this. I referred to Jude, which speaks of the unholy angels leaving their habitation.



Yes, Satan is responsible for the destruction of the earth. The destruction of the earth became inevitable once sin entered in, and Satan is the author of sin and all its results. As the author, Satan is responsible.

I'm sure you're familiar with the second law of thermodynamics. Do you think God created the universe in this way, or is this the fruit of sin? If it's the fruit of sin, then Satan is the author of this law, which makes destruction inevitable.



Arnold, your second question is obviously sarcastic. So I'll pass.



That's an opinion you have, which has as its basis certain ideas you have regarding God's character. I have a different opinion, also based on my understanding of God's character, which is that the principle is of the same ilk as the principle "God cannot lie," for example. I assume you would agree that this principle is of universal application.

As support to my point of view, I adduce Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a full and complete revelation of God. To do so was the whole purpose of His earthly mission. It seems clear to me that the principle that God does not destroy, that force is not a principle of His government, that He does not use compelling power, which is only to be found in the government of the enemy, was exemplified in the life and teachings of Christ. Also, if you consider the wording used ("only to be found in the government of the enemy," "the Lord's principles are not of this order") I don't understand the suggestion that it's wrong to apply these universally.



Sin is inherently destructive. This is because it is based on the principle of putting self first, which leads to separation from God, which leads to death.



Those who choose the service of sin separate themselves from God, the fountain of life, thus cutting themselves off from life.

Interesting. What do you think would have caused her to "cease to exist"? Jesus warned her that beholding the form and glory of God would not end favorably.


Ellen White saw the form and glory of Jesus and it did not cause her to "cease to exist". Why not?

Jesus told Ellen White that the Father has a form like His. Do you think the Father’s form is different than Jesus’? If so, in what way do you think it is different? Also, do you think Jesus’ form is different than ours? If so, in what way do you think it is different?


I cannot find where you clearly explain it. Everything that comes up in a search simply has you saying you’ve already explained your position clearly. Do you know where it is? Apparently you are unwilling to simply restate it. Is there a reason why? Why do you think fire proceeded from the tabernacle and consumed them to death? What was the origin and source of the fire?


1. First death. The antidote for sin is “Christ in you the hope of glory”. In Christ believers “do not” and “cannot” commit a known sin.
2. Second death. The antidote for sin is capital punishment.


Why and how do you think lava consumed them to death? And, why and how do you think Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt?

I find the underlying thread of thought very disturbing. Maybe it's because it contrasts so much with my view of God.

The Law of God, His character, says not to kill. But, it's been said that God kills people for good reasons.

What if we were to kill people? What if it were for good reasons?
What if it were to punish heretics and infidels, to make them an example so that others won't be lost?

You're thinking of this?



Well, we know the glory of God is His character. For example:



So I suppose it could be information overload.



She explained this in the quote, right?

I don't know anything that's not in the quote. It seems to me it would be idle speculation for me to try to guess how the Father's form is different than Jesus'.





Yes, there are reasons.

A reason is that, on several occasions, I have explained what I thought would be a fruitful approach to this topic, and on each occasion what I suggested was completely ignored. I spent countless hours going about it your way, but you didn't reciprocate at all to go about things as I suggested.

However, kland was not a part of these discussions, and he may wish to discuss the topic. You could start a thread, and see what happens. If kland chooses to participate, it's likely I'll say something as well.



I guess you didn't understand "flesh out"(?). I meant explain it in some detail.



I don't understand your first question. Surely you know how lava works. I'm thinking I must be misunderstanding it.

Regarding Lot's wife becoming a pillar of salt, I've quoted the following several times:



I should amend my previous comment that I thought Sodom and Gomorrah was due to volcanic activity. One of the web sites I briefly looked at presented evidence that it was more likely to be due to earthquake activity than volcanic activity. I didn't look at it carefully, but at a glance it looked like the argument being presented was reasonable.

How exactly it happened, doesn't matter to me. That it wasn't God's acting directly/independently/arbitrarily is the important thing, and my basis for believing God did not act in such a fashion is based on an understanding of His character and the nature of the Great Controversy, sin, and Satan.

Sorry, but really short on time these days....


OK, let me try to illustrate my point by agreeing with yours.

Let's say force is not part of God's government. Force is what causes a change in momentum (F=dp/dt); without it, everything will remain with the same momentum. IOW, nothing accelerates. Therefore, in God's perfect world, everything either moves in a straight line or does not move at all.

I assume you do not agree with this. If I'm right about that, please articulate why you do not agree.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but illustrative. The proper answer, and I think you will agree (at least in your mind), is that God commanded the people to throw stones and shoot arrows; they were not going to start flying around by themselves. And I'm trying to illustrate to you that there are elements of your beliefs that you cannot bring yourself to articulate. You would rather pass and say nothing, leaving you free to shift your position as the need arises. I think GC has pointed this out once or twice.

Notice also that you passed on the first question, which I assume you did not see as sarcastic. Yet, you passed on that as well. Had you given a straight answer, we could have made some real progress in understanding each other. Unfortunately, you left it hanging.

So, how about it? Are you willing to say out loud (or write "out loud") that God commanded the people to shoot/stone the transgressors? Are you willing to say that God was the source of the fire that came from the cloud, rather than some nebulous, unseen danger that happened to target a specific set of people? I would like to see it.

This is just a play on words.