I can think of no questions you've asked that I haven't answered, often many, many, many times.



We've discussed this at great length.



Was the hunter father acting uncharacteristically of himself? Or was it the case that he was acting consistently with his character, but others could misunderstand that?



I think the principles of God's kingdom were made clear by Jesus Christ. Do you see Jesus Christ's life exemplifying violence at all?

An issue I've raised quite a few times, which I don't think has been addressed, is the question of whether the use of violence is part of God's kingdom. I think all would agree that before sin, it wasn't, as there was no violence. So the question is after sin, violence began to play a part in God's kingdom.

It seems to me there is a big problem with the idea that God would use violence to accomplish His purposes, as violence seems to me to be as tied to sin as selfishness is. Indeed, violence is simply a means that the selfish use to accomplish their goals. I don't see Jesus Christ every using violence, or approving of it. James speaks to the principle of violence here:

MM, here are a couple of quotes to consider. The first one says to offer as peace terms the opportunity to surrender and become slaves, or to be killed (males) and forcibly become slaves (women and children). Do you think this represents the principles of God's kingdom?

In the second quote, girls were sold into slavery, and their masters were allowed to take them as "another wife." Do you think this represents the principles of God's kingdom?

Here's another one:



Same question.

Many of these can be added. There were many things which the Lord permitted the Israelites, because of the hardness of their heart. But would you want to live in a such a society? Do you think such a society represents the mind of God? Or does Jesus Christ represent the mind of God? (or do you see no difference?)

Why is the wages of sin death? Who said so? It's because God created things that way. Why didn't He create things some other way? How fair is it if you only have one good choice - obey and live, disobey and die? Most of my relatives are unbelievers, and yet each one is as kind and loving and compassionate and guilt-free as the members at church. They go to bed and rise with a clear conscious.

You seem to be saying God "he was acting consistently with his character" when He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


You asking me this question doesn't help me understand what you believe. Again, do you think obeying the command of Jesus to kill people in battle or to execute capital punishment reflects the principles of God's kingdom or Satan's kingdom?

PS - This question is aimed at the concerns you raised in 129454 and 129455.

I'll deal with this part separately, and then your questions.

The reason I disagree with this is that the whole purpose of the Great Controversy is the vindication of God. God cannot be vindicated without the judgment.

That turned out to be a lot briefer than I had anticipated.

So it's not a step that could be skipped.



That the wages of sin is death means simply that sin results in death. One version puts it something like this: "Sin pays its wages: death," which makes the point clearer. It's not an arbitrary result, where the death is disconnect from the sin, as if it weren't an organic result, but death is to sin what the oak is to the acorn. We see at Calvary what sin develops into.

James brings this out in saying:



Sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Why? Because the root of sin is selfishness, and selfishness can do no other than to bring about misery, suffering, and death. It's not a principle that promotes life.



God didn't create "things" in this way, but created beings with free will. These beings could use this free will to reject God, who is the source of life, and death would result, but this has nothing to with how God created "things" other than that He chose to create beings with free will that could choose to love and be loved.



It sounds like your saying your relatives have the character of Christ (kind, loving, compassionate), and are not knowing rejecting light (go to bed and rise with a clear conscience). But you think they will be lost? And ask how fair this is?

Well, as you have described things, this wouldn't be fair, of course. No one with a Christ-like character who isn't rejecting known light will be lost. I think you're not describing things well here. I also don't see the point you're trying to make.

Was the hunter/father acting inconsistently with his character? Was he for or against hunting? Could his actions be misinterpreted so others would think he was in favor of these things?

What I'm saying is that God was constrained to do things because of the hardness of people's hearts which, like the hunter/father, could be taken in a way that His character could be misunderstood. I'm saying that if we wish to know God's character, we should be centered upon the revelation of Jesus Christ. All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ. To know God's character, we need but ask, "What was Jesus Christ like?"



Sure it does. You're arguing in a certain way, that God commanded certain things, so therefore obeying these commands must mean that these things are in harmony with the principles of His kingdom. I'm countering this argument by bringing certain things to your attention, and one of the means I'm using to do this is by asking you questions.



In the story of the hunter/father, was the son following the father's will by obeying his counsel to be careful while hunting, of being humane to the animals, etc? One could say yes, he was, but what the father would really have liked was that his son not hunt at all. Similarly, God gave counsel in regards to divorce, but what He really would have liked would have been that they not divorce. And the same can be said for all counsel which involves principles which are different than the principles Christ revealed.

The principles of God's kingdom were revealed fully and completely by Jesus Christ. That should be our starting point. We can catalog these, and then use them for comparison, to know when God is giving counsel because of the hardness of men's hearts, as opposed to counsel which represents His ideal will. Makes sense?

Tom, let's do it your way. Let's limit our study to the earthly life and teachings of Jesus to determine why He commanded godly people in the OT to kill ungodly people. You wrote, "God was constrained to do things because of the hardness of people's hearts." Did Jesus command Moses to kill ungodly people because Moses' heart was hard? If so, how do we glean this from Jesus' words in the NT? If otherwise, same question.

God establish the order of things, namely, obey and live, disobey and die. There's nothing natural or arbitrary about it. It is the result of divine design. There are no parallel pathways that also result in perfect peace. The reason for this is divine design, that is, God did not create us to experience perfect peace in other ways.

The truth is, however, there are plenty of people out there who experience perfect peace who have made informed, conscious decisions not to embrace Jesus as their personal Savior. And yet they are just as kind and loving and compassionate as the best of Christians. They understand that joy and happiness and peace are byproducts of being kind and loving and compassionate. What accounts for this anomaly? Do these people really deserve to suffer and die because they refuse to embrace Jesus? What is the evidence their choice is death?

Why do you do this? On purpose, or ignorantly? This isn't "my way". I've never suggested this.

What I've said is that God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ, and we should use this as our foundation to understand what God is like. This is "my way." Why would you substitute something I've said over and over again for something I've never said?



This isn't doing what I suggested. What would be "my way" would be to consider the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. For example, the Sermon on the Mount would be a good place to start. What does the Sermon on the Mount tell us about what God is like?

Here's the thing: how we interpret inspired comments is *highly* dependent upon how we view God. You see God as capable of doing certain things, such as setting people on fire and keeping them alive for the purpose of punishing them. Because you see God as capable of doing this, you interpret certain inspired statements the way you do. But you don't see God as capable of lying. So when there's an inspired statement which says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, you would (I presume) understand this to mean that God permits these spirits to lie to Ahab, not that God was using these to lie to Ahab, since God does not lie.

Or here's another example. You have a certain view regarding how God views the future. So statements which speak of risk you interpret in the way you do, a way which seems strange to me, since "risk" means the possibility of loss (in the context of Christ, of failure), which you reject, because you believe Christ was certain He would succeed. (To connect the dots here, unless you think Christ might have been wrong in being certain that He would succeed, it follows that it was not possible for Christ to fail. This is because if Christ failed, it would mean He was wrong in being certain that He wouldn't. And, given it was not possible for Christ to have failed, there was no risk involved.)

Similarly I interpret certain inspired statements the way I do, a way that seems strange to you, because my understanding of God's character, that He was exactly like Jesus Christ revealed during His earthly mission, constrains me to do so. I can't imagine that God would do things which could only be called "torture" if anyone else were doing exactly the same thing other than God.

I believe Jesus Christ revealed conclusively, both by precept and example, that God is not violent. Not only is God not violent, He is anti-violence. As such, how could God act violently or be in favor of violence?

Also I believe that Jesus Christ revealed clearly that the Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of violence. Indeed, I can't imagine how Jesus Christ could have communicated this point any more clearly than He did. For example, how did He react when Peter cut off the man's ear? How did He react when the disciples wanted to have fire from heaven destroy those who wouldn't receive Him? How did He react when others sought to do Him harm?

Or consider the idea that force is not a principle of God's kingdom. It seems to me that Jesus Christ illustrated this as clearly as could be done, in the entirety of His life. And we have a clear statement stating exactly this point, that force is not a principle of God's government. Yet you believe that force IS a principle of God's government, despite the clear statement, and despite the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Why do you believe this? Mainly, as far as I can tell, because of the way you understand the Old Testament.

The main purpose of the Old Testament, which is true for all Scripture, and all inspired statements, is to lead us to Jesus Christ. In Him we see, in unrivaled clarity, what God is like, and what constitutes the principles of God's government.