Tom, based on your post above I have taken the liberty to answer the following questions on your behalf. If you disagree with any of the answers, please explain why. Thank you.

---

The following EGW excerpts are taken from the quotes posted above.

---

EGW: Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands ....

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes holy angels stepping aside and allowing evil angels to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty.

MM: Tom, do you really believe passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

You arguing both your own and Toms part now Mike? Surely that would lead to a quick resolution to your debate, dont you think?

Thomas, Tom has been unwilling to plainly answer my questions. I am trying to pin point what he believes so we can resume studying the issues related to this thread. Do you have any suggestions?

MM, regarding your questions and answers, I just wrote this:



It seems to me that you are trying to take an approach which is too scattered. Rather than trying to understand the underlying principles involved, you look for proof texts. I don't think this approach is wise.

In particular, I'd invite you to look at my comment above regarding 1). If you want do continue this discussion, we could discuss this point 1), which is what you're basically violating in the questions/answers you're answering on my behalf.

On this question, I dont know what to think. On the one hand, Jesus is our best example of whom God is and what His character is like. And as Tom has pointed out, Jesus didnt kill anyone. However, on the second hand we have a flood, a case of burning sulphur from heaven, ten plagues hitting Egypt but only after Moses had given message from God giving information about the characteristics of each plague in advance and other alike examples before Jesus. After Jesus we have a couple professing to give generously to the church while in secret being somewhat less generous falling dead. We also have Jesus predicting suffering and death for sinners as recorded in the gospels and we have Jesus predicting death by fire for the devil and all evil angels and humans in the judgement as recorded in revelation.

Well, how are these two reconciled? Where does the image of God who does not kill and is known for selfsacraficing love meet the image of God who does at times send death and destruction on sinners?

If the answer is as Tom has suggested that only the first image of God is correct, how did the destruction the bible attributes to God take place? Did the devil send the flood and rain burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah? Why didn't the devil in such case try to destroy humanity in a different way when he saw that God led Noah to build a boat? Or if it is not nesessarily the devil who does the killing but sin itself, how? If one says that sin kills by leading its captives to suicide, that doesnt explain any fire from heaven or earthquakes opening up under the sinners feet. Does sin have a substance that like nitroglycerin is likely to explode as soon as the precautions to keep it under control are removed? Or was it the glory of God who destroyed sin and sinners like fire? But would this not suggest that the glory of God comes with a scent of sulphur? Wouldnt that be ironic in such case? And truly, if God decides to shine His glory on a couple of cities while continuing to shield the rest of the world from it, how is it more than semantics to say that God did not destroy those cities?

Simply, more questions than answers.

Well put, Thomas. It is hard to believe Satan would do something that is specifically calculated to honor and glorify God. For example, consider the following insights:

EGW: These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty.

EGW: These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"

EGW: God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner.

Tom, you seem to be guilty of doing this very thing.

Good questions, Thomas. Sounds pretty much like the thinking I went through when I first had the thought that perhaps God was not the killer that most perceive Him to be. Of course, the question comes out, how does one explain the many incidents (over 1,000 in the Old Testament alone!) that portray God as a violent God.

Not only are there so many accounts of violence attributed to God, but there are many motives attributed as well. Oftentimes God kills because He is jealous or angry. Certainly the idea that you better not cross God comes across loud and clear, because if you do, He will violently put an end to you.

This goes along with the idea of God's violently bringing an end to the wicked at the judgment as well. A God who kills "billions" of men, women and children, as MM puts it. With so much evidence, how can we escape the conclusion that God is a killer, and violence is the hallmark of His government?

I think the first step may be a conviction that something is wrong. That is, we see in Jesus Christ One who was as non-violent or anti-violent as one could imagine. Not only did Jesus never kill anyone, He never lost His temper, or even yelled at anyone. One might thing of His scathing denouncements of the pharisees as contradicting this idea, but Jesus was in full control, only said what He said as a warning to those influenced by the pharisees, after years of trying to reach them, doing everything He could not to offend them (this is why He took to teaching in parables, when He saw the resistance that came His speaking directly; He also departed on many occasions in order to avoid controversy). We are told that there were tears in His voice as He rebuked the pharisees.

So how does one reconcile this wonderfully kind, patient, gentle man with the angry, jealous smiting God of the Old Testament?

There are two general approaches it seems to me that one can take. One approach is that both pictures must be correct. Somehow, on the one hand, God is like Jesus Christ, and sometimes (hopefully much of the time) kind, patient, gentle and non-violent like Jesus was. However, besides being merciful, God is also justice (we hear), meaning that He will visit with violent retribution those who would dare to cross Him. In order to keep this second picture, we resort to justifications of God's temper, jealousy and actions.

The other approach is based on the conviction that if God really is like Jesus Christ, there must be some other explanation for the violent episodes that are attributed to God. In most cases, there are alternative explanations that are easy to find. God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits, and that alone explains many episodes.

Some episodes are not so easy to explain. However, it is also not easy to explain how God, on the one hand, can be like Jesus Christ, and, on the other hand, be totally unlike Him. So we get to choose which difficulty we want to keep.

Regarding sin being like nitroglycerin, that's not a bad image to have. I suppose you said it in jest, but it's a good picture of reality. If we view sin as being exceedingly dangerous, able to smite through the direct workings of Satan, or indirectly through natural disasters, then it's easy to see what sort of havoc is sure to happen the moment God releases control. Here are some statements from the Spirit of Prophecy which help understand this principle:



There are many important points in this paragraph, but I chose to highlight just one. We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and prosperity we enjoy. Why not? Because to us it doesn't seem like He's doing anything. We just take it for granted that we aren't in any danger. Going along with nothing happening to us is normal, so we don't imagine that we are actually being protected, always.



This quote brings out that God is actively involved in keeping things in order, which, of course, is not what we naturally perceive.



It's not my intent here to present overwhelming evidence for my given point of view. I don't believe that's possible. I'm just trying to put forth a few ideas that allow for the *possibility* of a given point of view.

If we asked the question, if it were possible to explain the accounts in Scripture which portray God as acting violently, would that be something desirable, if the answer is "no," then there's no point in continuing the study. However, if the answer is "yes," we can pursue principles which allow for this interpretation.

Regarding the specific question about this event or that one, there's simply too many to go through each one (there's over 1,000!), however, the same principles can be applied to similar cases.

I'll address three episodes: 1)Sodom and Gomorrah 2)The flood 3)The Egyptian plagues

Sodom and Gomorrah could well have been the result of a volcano. Here's a web site that discusses this possibility: http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi58.htm

One might ask, "What about Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt." That doesn't seem like it could have been the result of a natural disaster.



This is from Henry Morris, a well known creationist. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lotswife.html)

Regarding the flood, everything points to the flood having been precipitated by waters from the ocean exploding into the atmosphere. The Spirit of Prophecy says this explicitly, the Scriptural account strongly suggests this, and scientists who believe in the flood have modeled this, believing this is what precipitated the flood.

These waters would have had to have been under tremendous pressure. There are at least two possibilities for the flood which do not have God initiating the violence. One is that God knew when the earth would give way, and Noah's preaching was a warning to what would happen if God did not intervene. God could have intervened, as He did in the case of Nineveh, if Noah's preaching had been heeded.

A second possibility is that God had been consistently holding back these pressures, and simply stopped doing so when Noah's preaching was not heeded.

Regarding the Egyptian plagues, first of all, if we suppose that God was applying more and more pressure, greater and greater violence, until He finally got His way, then God would be acting like a mafia protection thug. Pay for protection, or something bad might happen to you. The store owner refuses the protection, and worse and worse things happen to the store, until finally the store owner capitulates. Is this how God accomplishes His will?



There are many similar statements regarding God's not using force to compel the conscience. However, if the traditional view of the plagues were true, one could hardly imagine a better example of compelling the conscience than that.

EGW writes that the plagues of Egypt were similar in character to the final plagues to fall in Revelation. Of these plagues from Revelation we read:



I'll stop here. Basically, repeating what I said earlier, it seems to me there are issues one needs to deal with regardless of which position one takes on this issue, but I think the issues are less onerous in the non-violent God view.

I suppose a superficial reading of what she wrote could give this impression, however, looking more carefully, we see she writes things like this:



When Ellen White warns about those teaching God does not punish sin, she is arguing against the idea that one can sin with impunity.

The destruction of Jerusalem is the most decisive testimony to the certain punishment that befalls the wicked. How did God destroy Jerusalem?

That was a massive post Tom. Lets see about some comments on it. You wrote:
While Jesus never killed anyone or lost His temper, we are told that He hunted the vendors of the cult sacrafices out of the temple at least once.

Regarding the two paths one have to choose from, you are propably right that many of these 1000 events are things that God allowed but I still fail to see how all of them could be thus "explained away" without doing irreparable damage to the message of these books. If God did not do what we are told He did, how can we then trust the rest of the message around these events? If God did not cause the flood, what is the promise signified by the rainbow that God would never do it again worth? Promising to never do again what He didnt do in the first place anyhow?

I agree that sin is exceedingly dangerous, but im not sure it is a cause of spontaneous combustion as it would have to be for the devil to be destroyed in fire after the judgement wihtout God being involved in it.

Of course I agree that God is in the buisness of creating order where disorder is.

The question I have about the volcanoe at Santorini causing the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the closest way between the mountain and the Jordan valley goes right over the hill country where Abraham was standing in safety and towards which Lot was running for safety. If the burning ash cloud took the roundabout way, it would have left a trail of death and destruction simmilar to Sodom all the way through Lebannon and over Gennesaret down the valley, not just those 5 cities. Such a massive destruction would have been heard of from many other sources besides the bible.

Regarding the plauges of Egypt, Moses hit the waters of the Nile with his staff and immediately its contents of blood rose to such a high level that the fish in the river suffocated and the ground water was tainted by the blood. If God did not turn the water into blood, or allowed the devil to turn water into blood (if the devil even has such powers of alchemy) there would have to have been a massive depopulation of Ethiopia around this time. Can you imagen the amount of lives that would have to be spilled to compleately saturate one of the worlds greatest rivers with blood? Once again, such a depopulation of an entire region would not go unheard of.

Maybe there is a third option other than God either being compleately unassociated with any of this or God being the great Al Capone in the sky. Would it be worth an effort to search for such a solution?