Not quite. I do believe that God expects us to obey even when we don't understand why He commands what He commands. Yes, He wants understanding, but it often takes a long time for foolish humans to grasp it. In the meantime, while we lack understanding, He still requires obedience.

But the reason for our obedience, and this is the key you failed to see, is not His position of authority, but our trust of His love and wisdom. Because He loves us, He wants only the best for us. And because He is wise, He knows what is best for us and how to effect it. And because we trust His love and wisdom, we obey, even if our sinful, human wisdom falls short of understanding.

I guess that another factor, aside from trusting God's love and wisdom, is distrusting my own wisdom.


You say that God's wisdom and love are the basis of your kind of obedience, but your explanation does not bear this out. Rather than trust God's love and wisdom, and obey Him because He loves you and He is wise, you will obey only after your own wisdom and reason have confirmed the efficacy of His command. In fact, I would say that in your view, God never commands; rather, He requests, and you comply if His request is acceptable to you.

I would not question if your view constitutes obedience, because it clearly does. However, it is not obedience to God; it is obedience to yourself.

LOL I like that. Indeed, all hell will break loose if not for God.

However, I don't agree that this is a result of sin. In a sinless universe, do you think things would continue functioning flawlessly without God's participation? If so, that is tantamount to saying that God wants a universe that can function without Him.

I don't agree with that. I believe God, even in a perfect universe, is necessary for even the most fundamental phenomena. His life makes everything go. Without God, even without sin, entropy will increase until it reaches a state of equilibrium.


So, when Satan is dead, and the earth is a giant mess, who is it that causes everything to melt with fervent heat? You don't think that's God?

But that does not make it any less true that the reasoning you use to deny that God killed people (directly or indirectly) is the same you use to deny that God will cause people to burn in the end.

I wouldn't say that. I would say you are a whole lot of confused. To fix the confusion may require going way back and settling such fundamental issues as why we are lost and what it is that Jesus saves us from. Perhaps we can find a good thread for that.


Yes, you are confused there. Character = thoughts and feelings combined. Acts are not part of character, but character influences acts. Good we cleared that up.


Not really. If I "lie" with my wife, there would be no problem. If my neighbor "lies" with his wife, there would be no problem. But if I "lie" with my neighbor, that would be a problem.

Same act, different people, different results.


See the example above.

Consider another example. If God gave Eve the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to eat, there would be no problem. But Satan gave it her, so there was a problem.

Same act, different people, different results.


No, I don't. I think religious killings, for the most part, are because people thought they had the same prerogatives as God.

But people doing what God tells them to do, like when the Israelites stoned Achan, is a good thing.

Amen! And that's a good thing.

I must admire your ability to put things in a negative way when it comes to God's doing things, but I don't agree that God will force people to do things against their will. My understanding is that force is contrary to the principle of God's government, and that His principles are of this order. If this were only true sometimes, then we should say instead something like "Generally speaking, force is not a principle of God's government. Usually the Lord's principles are not of this order. Generally speaking, compelling power is only to be found in the government of the enemy."

Certainly if God were to act contrary to the principles of His government during the final judgment, the purpose of which is the vindication of God and His government, that would be irony of the highest order.

In the first part of your response, it appears you're saying pretty much the same thing I am. That is, that we should obey God on the basis of His character (we can trust Him because of His wisdom and love) as opposed to on the basis of His position (do what He says because He is God).

From the SOP we read





These bring out the importance that God ascribes to reason, which is because God respects free will so highly. In order for us to do things of our own free will, our reason must be involved. Otherwise, if reason is bypassed, our obedience becomes robotic and unthinking.

Here's a statement regarding God's will that we understand the reason for Christ's having come:



Here's a statement regarding the importance of understanding God's character, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy.



Regarding your point about commanding versus requesting, the word I would use is "counsel." That is, God counsels us, and we choose whether to heed His counsel or not, since God does not force the will. If we choose not to, He does not arbitrarily punish us, because we didn't do what He said, but we suffer the consequences of setting aside His wise counsel.

That which destroys is sin/Satan. Therefore God warns us in regards to this great danger. If we disregard His warnings, we suffer the inevitable consequences. It's inevitable that choosing self over God will lead to problems, including suffering, misery and death. How could it not?

Your final paragraph was the following:



The position that God appeals to our reason when asking us to do His will, you consider as not obedience to Him, but obedience to self. If it is true that God does appeal to our reason in regards to obedience, then your paragraph here is indirectly an accusation against God.

I think there are two different issues here. One is whether the universe could run without God. I agree with you regarding this point.

Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, my thoughts have been that this is the result of sin. My thinking is that the second law of thermodynamics has to do with inefficiencies, and that without sin things would run with 100% efficiency, hence the second law of thermodynamics wouldn't apply. However, I haven't thought this through in detail. Of the top of my head, I can see some difficulties with this idea. For example, if one puts a few drops of perfume in a room, in a number of minutes its fragrance will fill the room, because the molecules diffuse, which is expected by the second law of thermodynamics. One would certainly expect this behavior to continue, even without sin. So it would probably be necessary to break the second law of thermodynamics into categories. Something interesting to consider.



I think it's the fire that causes the heat, and I think the fire comes from the earth (molten lava and such).

If I'm using the same reasoning Ty uses, this doesn't matter, does it? That is, my point applies, that we can discuss the final judgment without discussing whether God has killed in the past.

So, would you say if I have good character, I can do any acts? Or are you saying a good character results in good acts? Which then comes around to whether the acts are good or not. Which then brings up that God and Satan do the same act of killing.

Not really, but really? Really it is who is doing the laying with whom?


But really, it is not the same act. What was the sinful act that Eve did. I disagree with what you just said.

So this is an example of the same act. And the same people. Just someone else told them to. And if God told them to kill people, couldn't God tell me to kill people? And would it be OK?