We were discussing GC 35-37. You stated:



Whereas Ellen White wrote:



What you're saying contradicts what she said.



You're assuming that God was using soldiers to kill impenitent sinners when Jerusalem was destroyed. This is the false assumption, which is evident by the fact that Ellen White attributes this work to Satan, saying that he hides his own work by having others believe that God was responsible.



We were discussing GC 35-37. You're trying to refute Ellen White's own words written in one place by quoting other words of hers from another. That's not going to work.

The following is very clear:



This says:

1.The Jews had forged their own fetters.
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance.
3.In all the destruction that happened, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown.
4.Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity."
5." "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. 6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. BUT
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.

Once again, you opt to obliviously be patently, substantively besides the point. And.... it’s quite ironic and funny, in this discussion’s context, that you find the statements/expression of Jesus in Matt 23 as “insults”. That all indeed speaks volumes of what your view is all about, because, as also seen in prior circumventing remarks and/or non-responses of yours, even Jesus Himself it to fall in line with it. And I am just applying them where they indeed do also pointedly fit. You’re shoddy approach to Biblical Exegesis self-warrants this application. (PK 139.3-142.2).

And since you really need to know, I thought that a proper/Biblical understanding of God here would lead people to seek to help these very least, i.e., infants that are daily being murder. I guess I should not have presumed that!

I wasn't asking you to rewrite history. I'm not sure what you thought I disagreed with what you said was history. In fact, I thought I was giving the idea I agreed with you fully of the history.

You basically said the people of history had an ignorant view of God. What I was asking is how does one determine which of your or Tom's view is more educated/learned. Your view is similar to those you called ignorant. Tom's view of God is quite the opposite of those of the history, wouldn't you say so?

NJK:It doesn't seem to me that it should be necessary to explain to you why the following is an insult.



This is obviously sarcastic. This is evident from the "And...What's ..." "oh yeah 'blind...'" comment.

If you had meant to write something which wasn't an insult, you wouldn't have used a construct that goes "what's the ..." followed by "oh yeah," which is a mocking expression.

The Golden Rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you proofread your posts, looking for tone, you should be able to see that many of your posts have things written in them which you, assuming you're normal in this regard, wouldn't like to see addressed to yourself.

I understand it's easy to be upset when involved in these conversations, but it's not necessary to send the first draft you write. You can go through what you write, and ask the question if this is really the tone you want to have in your post. That's the beauty of posting on the internet; there's time to get things right.

It is self-manifest Tom, that your “have not/can’t done/do any/no wrong” attitude is not only limited to your view. That tone was meant to, if ever possible, snap you out of that skewed belief which is all derived from an incorrect and unexegetical approach to Biblical Study. Indeed it is obvious from your responses that you think you and your view know better than even Bible writer, which is why you outrightly ignore whatever they, including Jesus, say that contradict your selective and one-sided view. I only know of one way to awaken someone who is sound asleep, and even dreaming, in a Fire. (Matt 5:17-20). But it is indeed your self-blinding to Biblical facts that also prevents you from seeing any of this as “insults”. And... Jesus made fitting use of sarcasm throughout Matt 23, even the entire gospels when addressing these religious leaders, for those reasons, and it probably had its “awakening” effect soon after (e.g, Acts 6:7|DA 265.4)

Frankly and seriously kland, I am annoyedly tired of having to do the thinking for you while you just quasi-vexatiously, mindlessly, spout off whatever spurious surface objection that first crosses your mind. Your responses seem more mischievous to me than serious/sincere. And it does concern me, as it takes up my time.



Your resolute premise of: “let’s pretend...”. despite the incontrovertible historical facts.



Well you fooled me! There further is no sequitur link between that Historical reality and my discussion here. If the laity then had come to their view on their own, then you would have a thematic link here, however they did not as they outrightly could not. So it was whatever the clergy told them was truth that they followed.


No....history says that they had the clergy’s view of God, thus only the clergy is at issue here, not the ‘compelled at the threat of death’ laity.



Re-read this thread using the Acts 17:11 principle/example.



Wrong on two counts: (1) My view does not call for compelling people to believe in God and killing them if they do not. It is just relating the wholly Just judgement actions of God when a wrong course has been freely chosen and taken to an unacceptable point/end. (2) The Papacy (I can only deal with historical fact, and not wishful reality) was not “ignorant”, just completely and knowingly unbiblical.



Actually it is opposite/indifferent to Biblical Facts/History. And in terms of being Biblical, by only selecting portions of the Bible that agree with its view, it is of the same type of unbiblical methodology and shaky constitution as the approach and assumptions of the Papacy. Biblical Truth is not what one wants or needs it to be, but what it (exegetically) is. We are the ones who have to align ourselves and theology with that Truth and not vice versa.

You said it should have answered my question. I said it doesn't, but let's pretend it does. Which involved the comparison of how learned/unlearned you are. Nothing about rewriting history.

I was referring to your and their view of the character of God. Would you be saying your view is similar to what the clergy told them?

Sounds like it.

Trying my best

We were talking about comparison view of the character of God. Did their view..... Maybe if you state what you think their view of the character of God is would be helpful in this conversation.

Yes, I do agree it is quite opposite of the history of the papacy view of God's character.

I believe he has pointed out things which it appears you ignore and that you only keep selected portions. So by you saying "selecting portions of the Bible that agree with its view" suggests that some portions do agree with his view. Therefore one could only conclude that you are merely selecting other portions, right? I've never heard Tom say he was not using the Bible exegetically, and in fact goes to extra effort to show the Bible and Ellen White supports otherwise to what you are saying it says. Which brings us back to how does one know which of your views is correct?

Certainly not. It's very evident in yours!



Have you found sarcasm to be an effective technique for helping others? Have you found them to respond favorably to such treatment?

Is this how you yourself would like to be treated? I'm sure there are those in this forum who view your ideas as negatively as you view mine. Would you like them to insult you and treat you sarcastically to 'snap you out of it'?



Ask kland or APL if this is how they perceive how I think. If it is obvious this is the case, then it should be evident to everyone.

I have many faults, I'll readily admit, but one strength I have, by the grace of God, is the willingness to embrace new ideas when presented with evidence that they are correct. How I think now is miles apart from how I thought years ago, notwithstanding I was as sure I was correct in my thinking as you are that you are correct.

Often our thinking is wrong. I know there are errors in my thinking, which is one of the reasons I participate in these discussions. Jesus Christ constantly challenges our paradigm. The new wine needs new wine skins.



And that's by insulting them, and being sarcastic?



If you quoted the reference, that would be a kindness to your reader. (Their time is more valuable than yours, should be your thinking. "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." Phil. 2:4)



You had to look up the text to know the reference. How much effort is it to copy and paste it?

Ok, this is what the text says. How does it justify insulting people and being sarcastic to them?



If I were prevented from seeing your writing as insults, I wouldn't be bring your insults to your attention, would I?



Here's the Acts reference:



I don't see anything about a fitting use of sarcasm here. I also looked up the Desire of Ages text, and there was no mention of sarcasm there either. I won't quote this one, as it's rather long. Rather than having to read large amount of text, and try to guess your intent, it would be a kindness to your reader to quote the text, and state what you're thinking.

Here are some statements regarding "sarcasm" I found from the SOP:











This is enough. I couldn't fine a single reference to "sarcasm" which is positive in its nature. I couldn't find a single suggestion that sarcasm is a tool of Christ. Every reference was negative; every reference suggesting sarcasm is a tool of the enemy.

Why do you view sarcasm as a positive thing?

Tom, kland, nice, respectively: peripheral/selective, and irrational/redundant, as obliviously usual, tries, but... Neh 6:3!!!

NJK, you say you have not the time to respond. But an observer would notice that you are the top poster of the last 30 days. And if he should look at your posts, many are not short ones but take up page after page. I think he would reasonably conclude that it would be incorrect to believe that you have not the time to respond to a simple question regarding a key comparison of the views of the character of God and how it compares to the papacy and the people under it.

But at the same time, after refusal these multiple times, it would be reasonable for him to conclude you will not answer it. But why no answer? The only conclusion that I can come up with is that the views of the character of God held by those of history, either ignorantly or forcefully, compare similarly to your view of the character of God. Which you do find disturbing. Rather than ignore it, why not reconsider if the view of those past was the correct view or if it's a coerced view of those trying to get their way.