So would you say we should not strive to be like God? And likewise, if Christ is the God of the Old Testament and came to represent the character of God,
then we should not strive to be like Christ?

I don't. I'm pretty sure Ty would have the same objection I have.

I don't believe God causes people untold mental anguish, or causes them suffering worse than physical fire, not even for a moment, let alone days. I believe that sin causes this suffering, as well as the mental anguish.

Here's what I think, and understanding the principles should help understand in general what I think, in applying the principles to other situations.

The inevitable result of sin is misery, suffering (including mental anguish) and death. God knows this, of course, and loving His creatures, He does all He can to rescue them from the effects of sin. He has an antidote. He offers it again and again to people, but if they refuse it, they will eventually suffer the consequences of their own choice.

Rather than causing the unfortunate effects of sin during the judgment, God permits them to happen. If God had left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished immediately, but God did not permit that, and does not permit that, until the judgment.

God is not responsible for either the suffering or the death of the lost. The Great Controversy is about establishing God's innocence in regards to the accusations of Satan against Him, which include who is responsible for sin and its results.

Without a doubt. Now, a question for you. Do you think they use literal language? Can you cite passages where they refer to fire in the literal sense? For example, did literal fire proceed from the presence of God and consume Nadab and Abihu.

PS - No need to start a new thread as fire is an integral part of judgment and suffering.

No, I'm not. I'm discussing things in terms of the principles involved. The principle is that force is not a principle of God's government. His principles are not of this order. The context makes clear how the author was using the word "force."



It's not a game, Arnold. The principles we hold to, and the views we have of God's character, of course have eternal consequences. Whether the principles I'm suggesting have negative consequences, or whether yours does (or both of us) depends upon the truth regarding God's character. If God is really more like as you picture him to be, than how I picture Him to be, then you're correct.

My understanding of God is far less authoritarian than yours. Your idea is that we are to do what God says, because He says so, and God does not require (or even desire, perhaps(?)) that we understand why. We should just do, because He's God, and God is in a position of authority over us.

I believe this is an accurate representation of your thoughts here.

I believe that God is not authoritarian, but rather wise and loving, and desires obedience on the basis of our appreciating His character, as opposed to based on His position of authority. I believe He never asks us to do something, involving moral decisions, without giving us evidence upon which to base our decision. I believe that God always wants our obedience to be a thoughtful, well-reasoned obedience, and never wants obedience simply on a rote basis, and would question whether God would even consider this to be obedience at all.

The real issue involved in our disagreement is what God is like.



There's no swicheroo. Since since came into being, it's had devastating effects, which always tends to destruction, as the 2nd law of thermodynamics illustrates. It's necessary for God to exert His influence to maintain things. The SOP tells us that even for the earth to stay in its orbit, God's influence is necessary. We don't half understand the negative impact of sin. When God finally let's go, then all hell breaks lose, so to speak.

I've been saying this all along.

Now if God were to actively cause destruction, like Satan does when God permits him to, then God would be using the tools of the enemy.



It's not hard to say, of course, but I don't believe what you're saying here is the case. I believe what I wrote is the case.



I've explained several principles in a detailed fashion, and I think clear way, in this post. I hope this will help.



I think it would be better that you just make whatever point you wish to make. I'm particularly interested in the principles you see are driving things. I think that's the best way to approach the discussion.



I was using "force" in the context of the quotes I've cited in regards to my assertion, which are DA 22 and DA 759. Of course "force" doesn't have a universal meaning, and I was neither suggesting nor implying such. The context of my comments was clear.

It's not necessary to believe that God does not kill to have the same picture of the judgment that I hold. For example, Ty Gibson's perspective on the judgment is, as far as I can tell, the same as mine, but he doesn't hold to the same views on the question of God's killing that I do.

So let's talk about anything involving fire? It's not necessary to discuss N & A to discuss the fire involved in the judgment. Unless your idea is that the latter cannot be understood without understanding the former.

Why and how do you think the wicked will cut themselves off? And, what will be the immediate result? Will they gradually die? If so, what will be their source of life while they are gradually dying? If you say, God is the only source of life, then please explain why and how they will continue to live after cutting themselves off.

You’ve been asked these questions before, and, to the best of my knowledge, you’ve dodged them in your classic manner, that is, you found fault with the questions or you redirected the topic or you quoted the SOP assuming it’s obvious to the average person that it supports your point of view. So please, Tom, answer the questions in a way less than average people know exactly what you believe. Make no assumptions.


But how will they become conscious of God’s character and their sins? Will they look at Him and simply know? And, why and how will it cause them to suffer emotional agony more intense than being burned alive? Why won’t it kill them instantly? Why and how will some suffer for days? What will be their source of life while they are gradually dying?


I did read what you wrote on this thread. That’s why I’m asking for clarification. Why are you unwilling to answer my questions? Do you think people were burned alive when God withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to kill them? Again, I assume your answer is, Yes, but please confirm my assumptions by saying so.


I have not divorced the character of God, as revealed in the life and death of Jesus, during this discussion. You have made it clear that God permits death and destruction by withdrawing His protection. I am simply asking for confirmation you believe this is what happened in the specific cases named above. So far you have refused to do so. Why?


Both Jesus and NT authors cite S&G as examples of how the wicked will suffer and die during the final judgment. N&A were consumed by fire which proceeded from the presence of God. During the final judgment the Bible and SOP both say God will rain down fire from heaven which will consume the wicked. Studying cases like N&A, the 250 Korah sympathizers, the bands of 50 soldiers, etc, all of whom died when fire from God rained down upon them. So, as you can see, it is very applicable. Indeed, we would be negligent if we ignored them here. Due diligence demands it.


True, I doubt it will happen, but there is evidence to suggest it will. I don’t know. God can do things in the name of justice we think strange and have no right to do.


You’re not addressing the point, which is, why and how do you think they will be able to die gradually instead of dying immediately? What will be their source of life while they are dying gradually? You keep refusing to answer this question. Why?


It sounds like you’re saying God will offer to save resurrected sinners during the final judgment, that they will be able to avoid suffering and death by accepting the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. But I happen to know this isn’t what you believe. However, your observations assume the wicked want God to resurrect them, that they want to comprehend the contrast between their character and His, that they want to suffer as a result. Do you believe they will volunteer? If so, why?

By the way, you still haven’t explained why and how you think they will die? Do you believe sin will kill them? If so, how and why? Will they die of heart failure, cancer, H1N1, or something else? How would a coroner describe the cause of death? You avoided answering this question above, so I am reposting it here for your convenience. Please answer it. Thank you.

Tom, as you can see from Arnold's response, there is a general impression you are not being transparent. You are an extremely intelligent person, and your ideas and insights are important to me. However, there are times when you are less than transparent, when you are too vague to understand. What can you do to avoid giving this impression?

No, I would not say that. I would say that we should strive to be like God in character, but not in authority. Satan wanted to be like God in authority, but not in character.

Sorry I confused you there. I thought we had passed the milk and had moved on to meat. But it's OK to back up now and then to clear up confusion.

(Side note: See how I answered the question in a transparent manner? I didn't say, "You should know the answer to that" or "My posts should have made it clear by now" or anything like that. Simple question, simple answer, confusion is clarified immediately.)

So, we are to be like God in many things, but not in everything. What you suggest - sinful man wielding the authority to take the life of his brother - is reserved only for Him who gives life. If you are expecting to be like God in that aspect, get ready to be disappointed. (But the rest of the universe will be quite relieved that such authority is not given to finite beings.)

Perhaps it's not me. I've posted on many forums, which have many more participants than here, and have not received any comments of not being transparent or vague.

I've written out a number of principles. Perhaps you could consider those. I believe the best way of working out theology is on the basis of considering the underlying principles involved.