Tom, I still don't understand how your responses in 128442 address my comments and questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.

Tom, while MM takes some time to consider why he himself considers "the act of punishment is a strange act", I hadn't heard your thoughts on when God's strange act is.

When she says, and and
Does she mean that is only one of many times of His strange act, an example of His strange act, and it is a general principle or does she mean the strange act? Or is Work and Act different?

Kland, I have nothing further to add.

I think the strange act is described here:



I think when Christ leaves the sanctuary is a particularly fine example of this, as this is when the angels stop their work of holding, and the seven last plagues start.

As the fulfillment of the Isaiah quote, I think your comments are correct. I think it can also be applied as a general principle, as the GC 36 quote articulates.

I responded to your post, and asked you questions. I asked the questions as a means of elaborating, but this depends upon your involvement. I suggest responding to my post which responds to your post.

There are lots of examples of this. For example, consider how Christ treated the woman who approached Him to be healed, and He made the comment about dogs.

God has no choice but to meet us where we are. He has to communicate to us in language we can understand. This is why it's so important to study the life of Christ, because that's where we see God revealed in His fullness. Otherwise there's all sorts of false conclusions one could wrongly come to. For example, the idea that God will mock or laugh at those in distress. This is obviously out of harmony with what Christ revealed. Rather than mock those who mistreated Him, He died the most excruciating death for them.



Sure there is. Consider the pathos in Ellen White's "voice" (or pen). She writes:



This is a warning! This is the same warning that God is expressing. God expresses His warning according to the character of the recipient of the message, so that person will take heed.

MM, if you think God mocks, that this is in harmony with His character, IMO you are seriously misunderstanding Him. Where do you see that Christ ever mocked anyone?

Here EGW uses the same quote, and her explanation is precisely how I interpreted the phrase:



It's not that God changes, first being Christ-like and kind, offering help, but if that help is spurned He becomes unChrist-like and laughs and mocks instead. The problem is with *us*, not God. *We* are not able to just change our ways, once habits have been set. It is this that God is warning us against (please see the underlined portion above).

Readdressing 128442:


Here’s the context of the passage you quoted:


So, yes, she is speaking about sinners reaping what they have sown after the second resurrection. By the way, what is the full result of sinning? What would happen if God allowed sinners to reap what they have sown the instant they sin? Would “His very presence” be “to them a consuming fire”? Would “the glory of Him who is love” “destroy them”? Does the full result of sin vary in duration and intensity depending on how many times a person sins?


I don’t know what you believe about each of the questions asked above. Regarding burning sinners alive you believe evil angels were allowed to kill them. But did it count as reaping what they sowed? If not, what purpose did it serve? How and why will the "glory of Him who is love will destroy them"? And, how and why is "His very presence is to them a consuming fire"? In what sense is it a consuming fire?


I don’t understand how your response answers the questions. Here they are again:

1. Who and what will the holy angels praise and thank when evil men, women, and children suffer and die during the outpouring the seven last plagues?

2. Will the plagues count as sinners reaping what they have sown?

3. If not, what purpose will it serve? In fact, what purpose does any of the suffering we experience in this lifetime serve if it doesn’t count as the real result of sinning?

4. Also, how will the plagues not be arbitrary? That is, since they are not a direct, natural consequence of sinning (like smoking results in cancer) they are obviously arbitrarily imposed.


He created a situation that allowed her to testify to her faith in Jesus. How do you apply this principle to Jesus saying, “I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh.”


You are dead wrong about how I view God. I don’t think God pretends to be something He isn’t in order to reach people steeped in darkness, which, by the way, is nothing more than a lie. I especially don’t believe God commands His chosen people to “utterly kill” everyone when in reality it is totally out of character for him to do so. As an evangelist in training I learned - “What you win people with is what you win them to.” Also, all your fancy attempts at paraphrasing what God said reminds me of politicians backpedaling after they’ve inadvertently expressed a belief they didn’t want people to know they believe.


Yes, I do. However, what about all those Christians who dismiss the majority of the Bible because it doesn’t fit their view of God? They deny the miracles, they deny the resurrection, and they deny Jesus’ promise to return and take us home. Which means they refuse to take God at His word. But instead of paraphrasing what God meant, they simply throw it out as uninspired. At least they are consistent. You, on the other hand, attempt to dissect the Bible and divide it into passages we can take at face value and passages we cannot take at face value. The problem is – Who decides which passages belong is which category?

Where do you see that the glory of Christ ever destroyed anyone? "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." Or, where do you see that His very presence was to anyone a consuming fire? "His very presence is to them a consuming fire."

In the cleansing of the temple we see the principles you speak of at work.

Let's consider these things at a higher level. The revelation of God's glory, or Christ's glory, is a passive act. It's simply God being who He is. The glory of God is His character. God shrouds His character, for a time, so His creatures can make intelligent decisions about Him. No one, being dead, could make such decisions.

Mocking someone, or laughing at their distress, is an active act (that sounds redundant, but I'm contrasting with "passive act.") What in *anything* Christ did would even lead to you consider it remotely possible that Christ would laugh at people's distress or mock someone? It's this sort of "color blindness," so to speak, in regards to God's character that I find upsetting. To laugh or mock is a very mean-spirited thing to do. God is not mean-spirited. As 1 Cor. 13 stated: "Love is kind." And we know that "God is love." Therefore God is kind. He is not mean-spirited. He doesn't mock people, nor laugh at people in distress. Instead, He sacrifices His life for such people.

It's important that we understand these things, because it impacts how we treat others. If we think that God is One who mocks and laughs at others in distress, this will lead us to act in a similar manner.

How and why do the righteous traits and attributes of God's character cause sinners to suffer and die? And, how does God prevent them from causing sinners to suffer and die the instant they sin?

Where do you see that the glory of Christ ever destroyed anyone? "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." Or, where do you see that His very presence was to anyone a consuming fire? "His very presence is to them a consuming fire."