Is It Possible to Live Without Sinning?

[Woody]

I see no fault in Rob's statement. Don't know how anyone could disagree with it. Of course some could try to attack the messenger. Not sure what that says about Truth.

[pnattmbtc]

I didn't disagree with his statement. Of course legalists think like that. What I'm wanting to know is if he thinks anyone who thinks differently than he does is necessarily a legalist.

[Woody]

Honestly? What can you imagine is his response?

[Woody]

Okay ... so then why ask it? What is your motive?

[pnattmbtc]

I don't know what Robert's answer is. He appears to have the idea that anyone who disagrees with him is a legalist. I have no idea if he thinks Ellen White, Waggoner, Luther or Hudson Taylor were legalists. My motive for asking him this is to find out what his answer is.

[cardw]

Quote:

This is a false premise. Actually, a lot of false premises, as I see things. I'll list them:

1.God destroys the wicked.

2.God raises the wicked for the purpose of destroying them.

3.God destroys them by displaying an act of violence.

I don't agree with any of these things, and the quote I presented says none of these things.

This can only be accomplished by ignoring portions of scripture and Ellen White. You completely failed to address the quote I posted. We can make the Bible and Ellen White say anything we want by "spiritualizing" it. There is no point in using it as a reference for truth if we are going to ignore large portions of it.

Here is the quote again for your reference because it refutes almost everything you have been saying.

Quote:

“Satan rushes into the midst, and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from GOD out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and the mighty men, and the noble and poor and miserable men, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering was there. Said the angel, The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.”

Spiritual Gifts Volume I, p.217-218

Until you can address the large discrepancy from a rational perspective, I have no option but to disbelieve your claims. I don't accept a "pick the quotes I like" and "choose only things that agree with my view" or "lets throw everything together and take the average" sort of approach.

You may be calling that "reading the Bible and Ellen White with the Spirit," but what I really think you are doing is referencing your own sense of fairness and selecting only those quotes that support this and ignore the rest or say that those quotes that even directly contradict your view don't say what they are saying. I simply can't believe what you are saying using these methods. They betray the nature of the search for truth.

I understand the need to keep the Bible and Ellen White relevant if you believe they are inspired writings. It is these direct contradictions that are deal killers for me. This is direct evidence that these are not god inspired writings. They may have inspirational portions, but no greater than any other man made writing that has insight.

Quote:

Of course it would be one of grief. This is why the Bible speaks of every tear being wiped away in this context. I agree with you that it is often misrepresented in the way you are describing, but this is a problem of misunderstanding God.

No, its a matter of ignoring those quotes that directly refute your view. I see no evidence of grief in the quotes I gave you. Rather I see direct evidence of triumph.

Quote:

No it's not. The destruction of the wicked happens as a result of the choices of the wicked themselves. It's not something God does to them. That's what the passage I quoted before points out.

The facts are that according to both your quotes and my quotes god does raise them from the dead and god, whether its through his glory or a literal fire, does kill them and causes them to suffer once again.

What is the purpose of their suffering?

What it appears to me is that you worship a god who just loves us so much, but through either his incompetence or his powerlessness simply can't avoid creating terrible suffering.

[cardw]

Quote:

Consider the possibility that sin results in suffering, and the more one sins, the more one suffers, because of the sin. For example, more sin means more guilt. As one becomes aware of the consequences of one's actions, one experiences guilt. The more sin, the more guilt, and hence, more suffering. This is just one example of how it makes sense that more sin = more suffering, without their having to be any cruel or arbitrary act on the part of God involved.

This wouldn't make sense in the context that sin is the fuel for the destructive power of god. It would have the opposite effect in terms of the length of time suffered. Those who had the least sin would suffer the longest since they would have less fuel. Those who had the most sin would flame brighter and faster.

This shows why the quote indicates that god controls the length of suffering, not a person's sin.

[wayfinder]

What is sin?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Me:This is a false premise. Actually, a lot of false premises, as I see things. I'll list them:

1.God destroys the wicked.

2.God raises the wicked for the purpose of destroying them.

3.God destroys them by displaying an act of violence.

I don't agree with any of these things, and the quote I presented says none of these things.

c:This can only be accomplished by ignoring portions of scripture and Ellen White.

I disagree. Don't you agree that what I'm suggesting is superior to the alternative? You're actually making many of the same points I've been making. The difference is you think that the Scriptures and Ellen White actually teach the things you're suggesting, so your reject them. I'm arguing that these writings have been misunderstood, and that which appears to be superior (and actually is; for example, that God is not violent, does not raise the wicked for the purpose of burning them, that God does not need blood in order to forgive) is what these writings actually teach.

Quote:

You completely failed to address the quote I posted.

I addressed it by saying you have to consider it in the context of other things the author wrote. After all, she wrote both things. If she wrote clearly in one place that the the wicked are lost because of their own choices, and not by means of an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, it can hardly be write to quote something else she wrote to establish the reverse of what she said elsewhere.

Quote:

We can make the Bible and Ellen White say anything we want by "spiritualizing" it.

What I quoted from DA 764 and GC 543 requires no spiritualizing at all. It's very straight-forward; just regular speech. On the other hand, the things you have been quoting are the counting of visions, which is clearly more open to "spiritualizing" as your calling it, than what I've been quoting.

Quote:

There is no point in using it as a reference for truth if we are going to ignore large portions of it.

Here is the quote again for your reference because it refutes almost everything you have been saying.

“Satan rushes into the midst, and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from GOD out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and the mighty men, and the noble and poor and miserable men, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering was there. Said the angel, The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.”

Spiritual Gifts Volume I, p.217-218

This is a vision. A principle of interpretation is that controverted passages should be interpreted in the light of incontrovertible passages. What I quoted was not symbolic. It needs to govern the telling of visions, not the other way around.

Quote:

Until you can address the large discrepancy from a rational perspective, I have no option but to disbelieve your claims. I don't accept a "pick the quotes I like" and "choose only things that agree with my view" or "lets throw everything together and take the average" sort of approach.

It seems to me this is exactly what you're doing. Actually, it seems to me what you're doing is picking the quotes you don't like, and then using that as a basis to reject what you don't want to believe.

Quote:

You may be calling that "reading the Bible and Ellen White with the Spirit," but what I really think you are doing is referencing your own sense of fairness and selecting only those quotes that support this and ignore the rest or say that those quotes that even directly contradict your view don't say what they are saying. I simply can't believe what you are saying using these methods. They betray the nature of the search for truth.

Let's start from the hypothesis that God is good, and that we aren't, and that God is trying to reveal Himself to us. Isn't it natural that we would misunderstand Him?

Assuming that God is good, and you come across things which present God as arbitrary, harsh, severe, unjust, and so forth, doesn't it make sense to reject the interpretation which leads to those conclusions? One possible conclusion is that the writings which present God is this way are false, and this isn't really God speaking at all. This seems to be the approach you are taking. Another possibility is that God has simply been misunderstood, that the writings haven't been understood to say what God intended.

To clear up any misunderstandings about God is like, God sent His Son, who said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." The way to understand what God is like is to start with Christ.

What was Christ like? Did He require blood to forgive? Was He cruel? Was He unjust? Was He violent? He said God was just like Him. Let's start there. Once we have an accurate idea of what God is like, we have a solid foundation to interpret inspired writings from.

Quote:

I understand the need to keep the Bible and Ellen White relevant if you believe they are inspired writings. It is these direct contradictions that are deal killers for me. This is direct evidence that these are not god inspired writings. They may have inspirational portions, but no greater than any other man made writing that has insight.

It could be that you've misunderstood the writings. You're stating that the more obscure things are clearly contradicting the clear passages. I think you can make any writings to be contradictory if you go about it that way.

Quote:

Me:

Of course it would be one of grief. This is why the Bible speaks of every tear being wiped away in this context. I agree with you that it is often misrepresented in the way you are describing, but this is a problem of misunderstanding God.

c:No, its a matter of ignoring those quotes that directly refute your view. I see no evidence of grief in the quotes I gave you. Rather I see direct evidence of triumph.

That God would grieve is a matter of common sense. Here's a quote which brings it out:

Quote:

Those who think of the result of hastening or hindering the gospel think of it in relation to themselves and to the world. Few think of its relation to God. Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death,--it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9.(Ed 263)

That some quote does not mention God's grief doesn't mean anything. You couldn't expect it to be mentioned at every opportunity. The above one brings out clearly that it exists.

Quote:

Me:

No it's not. The destruction of the wicked happens as a result of the choices of the wicked themselves. It's not something God does to them. That's what the passage I quoted before points out.

c:The facts are that according to both your quotes and my quotes god does raise them from the dead and god, whether its through his glory or a literal fire, does kill them and causes them to suffer once again.

No, the DA 764 quote does not say this. It says that death is the inevitable result of sin, and says that had God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin immediately they would have perished. It says nothing about God killing them. What sense would it make for God to kill them if death is the inevitable result of sin?

Quote:

c:What is the purpose of their suffering?

Those who choose the way of sin don't suffer because there is a purpose for suffering, but because the essence of sin is selfishness, and suffering is what happens to those who choose to live this way.

Quote:

What it appears to me is that you worship a God who just loves us so much, but through either his incompetence or his powerlessness simply can't avoid creating terrible suffering.

God could certainly use His power to prevent us from suffering, by doing something like re-wiring our brains, something like doping us up with heroine. However, if we use our free will to reject Him, and to choose to live selfishly, there's no way for Him to prevent our suffering without interfering with our free will. Our freedom is extremely important to God, in spite of the suffering, misery, and death that results when we misuse it.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Consider the possibility that sin results in suffering, and the more one sins, the more one suffers, because of the sin. For example, more sin means more guilt. As one becomes aware of the consequences of one's actions, one experiences guilt. The more sin, the more guilt, and hence, more suffering. This is just one example of how it makes sense that more sin = more suffering, without their having to be any cruel or arbitrary act on the part of God involved.

This wouldn't make sense in the context that sin is the fuel for the destructive power of god. It would have the opposite effect in terms of the length of time suffered. Those who had the least sin would suffer the longest since they would have less fuel. Those who had the most sin would flame brighter and faster.

This shows why the quote indicates that god controls the length of suffering, not a person's sin.

That's not the way guilt works. It's not fuel. The conscience accuses us of what we've done wrong when the truth comes to light. The more wrong we've done, the more our conscience accuses us.

[cardw]

Quote:

This is a false premise. Actually, a lot of false premises, as I see things. I'll list them:

1.God destroys the wicked.

2.God raises the wicked for the purpose of destroying them.

3.God destroys them by displaying an act of violence.

I don't agree with any of these things, and the quote I presented says none of these things.

Originally Posted By: cardw

I disagree. Don't you agree that what I'm suggesting is superior to the alternative? You're actually making many of the same points I've been making. The difference is you think that the Scriptures and Ellen White actually teach the things you're suggesting, so your reject them. I'm arguing that these writings have been misunderstood, and that which appears to be superior (and actually is; for example, that God is not violent, does not raise the wicked for the purpose of burning them, that God does not need blood in order to forgive) is what these writings actually teach.

I agree that it's an upgrade, but I don't believe the source of that upgrade is god. I think it's your own sense of fairness and justice. It is also based on your assumption that the Bible and Ellen White are the word of god. I think it is far more likely that your need to reconcile these with each other is the driving force of your approach.

Hitler rationalized that what he did was for the good of Germany and many of his programs for the German people were good and continue to be of benefit today. And yet we can see that his application of violence and aggression were clearly immoral and created suffering on a scale that shocked us. And yet you are perfectly willing to accept the idea that god would raise possibly billions of the evil dead and allow them to suffer simply to make a point?

Actually you still haven't given me a reason why god would raise the evil dead simply to watch them die. The sick thing is that you seem to imply that this act is evidence of god's love and justice. This goes way past Hitler. Or, you seem to be saying that it didn't happen at all, but was this vision she had.

Quote:

I addressed it by saying you have to consider it in the context of other things the author wrote. After all, she wrote both things. If she wrote clearly in one place that the the wicked are lost because of their own choices, and not by means of an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, it can hardly be write to quote something else she wrote to establish the reverse of what she said elsewhere.

I would say that she began to encounter problems with her early writings and changed just like any other human person on the planet. The whole point of getting messages from god is that they are true and provide evidence of superior insight. I see no reason why god should give her a vision with an angel explaining the whole thing for that matter and then have god say, "Well, it was all symbolic and you need to understand sometimes I need to be vague and mysterious for no apparent reason what so ever."

Quote:

What I quoted from DA 764 and GC 543 requires no spiritualizing at all. It's very straight-forward; just regular speech. On the other hand, the things you have been quoting are the counting of visions, which is clearly more open to "spiritualizing" as your calling it, than what I've been quoting.

Really, even with the angel telling her specifically what it meant. I'm going to quote it again, because you seem to be reading something rather less specific than I am.

Quote:

“Satan rushes into the midst, and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from GOD out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and the mighty men, and the noble and poor and miserable men, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering was there. Said the angel, The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.”

Spiritual Gifts Volume I, p.217-218

What possible use could this be as a spiritual insight considering that it's a description of part of the coronation of Jesus? Everybody is there. And it's particularly vicious. If this is not specific, then it's pretty poor communication on god's part. This is simply more evidence that this is not some superior god like insight, but the bumbling of a very human enterprise reflecting human ideas, not god ideas.

Quote:

This is a vision. A principle of interpretation is that controverted passages should be interpreted in the light of incontrovertible passages. What I quoted was not symbolic. It needs to govern the telling of visions, not the other way around.

So, of what use are visions? It seems like visions are pretty unreliable. What you are saying is that the words of Ellen White that we understand to be rational should govern the one's that aren't.

Quote:

It seems to me this is exactly what you're doing. Actually, it seems to me what you're doing is picking the quotes you don't like, and then using that as a basis to reject what you don't want to believe.

If something is true, I don't care who says it. Things that are true, don't have to be defended. They are self evident. What I am pointing out is that Ellen White and the Bible contradict themselves in quite a large number of places. And if you are going to use them as an authority for truth, they need to be consistent with themselves, otherwise we have no basis for a rational dialog, particularly when we are claiming to have insights into future events and we are making claims about god that are binding to everyone.

You can have all the spiritual experiences you want and you are absolutely the arbiter of your own experience, but when you say that your experience is to be truth for all mankind, you need to have a lot more evidence than you have, nor has any Christian, given.

Quote:

Assuming that God is good, and you come across things which present God as arbitrary, harsh, severe, unjust, and so forth, doesn't it make sense to reject the interpretation which leads to those conclusions? One possible conclusion is that the writings which present God is this way are false, and this isn't really God speaking at all. This seems to be the approach you are taking. Another possibility is that God has simply been misunderstood, that the writings haven't been understood to say what God intended.

Well, those writings cover major portions of the Bible. And I do reject the bible as a source of ultimate truth. I agree that god is not speaking through the Bible specifically or specially. And if these writings have been misunderstood then it's of no small fault of the one who inspired them. They don't reflect the mind of a superior being. They reflect a tribal iron age ethical system, with brief periods of insight. The evidence for this position is huge and becomes even more clear the more historical documents from these times periods become available.

Quote:

It could be that you've misunderstood the writings. You're stating that the more obscure things are clearly contradicting the clear passages. I think you can make any writings to be contradictory if you go about it that way.

That's the point. All human ideas and writings are incomplete and are full of contradictions. Writings are not containers of perfection. Language is simply not that powerful. That's why we continually learn and correct our understandings.

Quote:

No, the DA 764 quote does not say this. It says that death is the inevitable result of sin, and says that had God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin immediately they would have perished. It says nothing about God killing them. What sense would it make for God to kill them if death is the inevitable result of sin?

Apparently god is helpless to prevent their suffering. Have you heard of the sin of omission? If someone has the power to prevent suffering and stands by when they are able to prevent it, they become responsible. You still haven't explained the purpose of suffering for the evil dead raised at the coronation of Jesus.

Quote:

Those who choose the way of sin don't suffer because there is a purpose for suffering, but because the essence of sin is selfishness, and suffering is what happens to those who choose to live this way.

I can accept that there are consequences in this life, but this scene is when this life has passed and the evil dead have been raised again simply to die a horrible painful death again. Why raise the evil dead again? Of what purpose is this suffering? To teach them a lesson? They are going to be dead. Of what use is this lesson going to be? To teach the saved a lesson? What possible conclusion could one come to by watching this horrible scene of suffering that could be prevented by the very god you are worshipping?

The deeper we get into this and the more evasive and complicated the theology gets, the more it appears that this stuff is simply made up.

[Robert]

What is sin?

“In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven.” [DA 21]

Think about it...if I play a game of basketball, what's the aim? To win...to be first. It's in everything in this world. Even education is trying to beat out others to get the edge. Hence, none of us are free of "self".

The essence of all sin is the love of self, which is expressed in self-seeking & selfishness. Agape, as Paul states, is not self-seeking. It is a love that lives for others and never self. That is why in heaven no one will think of self....

Because Lucifer has developed his system based on self-seeking if we live a selfless life in this world we will experience wretched poverty, as did Christ, unless we belong to a church as found in Acts chapter 2 & 4.

Heaven's method of wealth and Lucifer's method are diametrically opposite. In God's system wealth is gained because others are living for you...and you for them. It's foreign to our understanding because we are not free of this world's influence.

If the last generation of Christians are to experience perfection (not "holy flesh") then they must be separated totally from the world. That's why EGW says, “Their earthliness must be removed that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected.” [4SP 438]

[pnattmbtc]

Nice post, Robert.

[wayfinder]

Is this what you are talking about?

John 13:34,35 NAS

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

[pnattmbtc]

I agree that it's an upgrade, but I don't believe the source of that upgrade is God. I think it's your own sense of fairness and justice.

[teresaq]

That may be, but ultimately, at least according to the Great Controversy, god is going to raise from the dead all the wicked so that we can watch them burn in the lake of fire. Ellen White states that the more sinful ones will burn longer. That looks a lot like violence and torture to me.

that certainly is the way it has been presented in our day and age, hasnt it?

i have been reading the pioneer writings lately on this and that certainly was not their focus. a very few would get into the "deeds" thing, mostly andrews i believe, but "burn-time" seems to have become the focus of later generations. it seems to be another way we can minimize our differences with other denominations beliefs. "see we believe almost like you do".

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't feel a need to reconcile these with each other. I feel a need to reconcile my own thoughts and idea with truth, which is an ongoing process. I believe God is constantly challenging our paradigm. This is what Jesus had in mind when He spoke of not being able to keep new wine in old wineskins.

This is turning into a shell game. Under which shell are we going to find truth?

For clarification purposes let me ask you a few questions.

Is the Bible THE standard of truth for you?

Is Ellen White an additional standard of truth for you?

If your observation of truth contradicts what either of these say, are they still a standard of truth for you?

Quote:

No, I've not implied this. I've denied this. I continue to deny this. What's more, I request you stop doing this. I've written quite a lot, so please quote something I've written. That's fair, isn't it? If you see something in what I've written that implies the things you're accusing me of, please point them out.

OK, I think I need some clarification here as well.

Do you think this vision that I have referenced is an actual occurrence in the future?

Do you believe that God will raise the evil dead one last time?

Do you believe that, in your words, God will allow them to die as a result of their choice after he has raised them one more time?

I think that will prevent me from assuming.

Quote:

If you think she changed, then we should still go with the quote I cited, as it was written over 50 years later than the one you cited.

Then what do you do with the old quote?

Quote:

Visions aren't for the purpose of constructing theology. Visions are given for different purposes.

What purposes?

Quote:

Why raise the evil dead again?

This is the question which should have been asked first.

[Robert]

Is this what you are talking about?

John 13:34,35 NAS "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

I'm thinking more in line with 1 Cor 13:5...

[pnattmbtc]

This is turning into a shell game. Under which shell are we going to find truth?

For clarification purposes let me ask you a few questions.

Is the Bible THE standard of truth for you?

Is Ellen White an additional standard of truth for you?

If your observation of truth contradicts what either of these say, are they still a standard of truth for you?

The standard of truth for me is Christ. I realize that might be a bit cryptic, so I'll try to explain a bit.

Jesus Christ said, "You search the Scriptures, but they testify of Me, and you will not come to Me that you might have life." The main purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ. Christ is our great need. The Scriptures are valuable in that they tell us about Christ and lead us to Him, but they are a means to an end, not the end. Jesus Christ is the truth, and He said as much.

Another way of explaining this is that before Christ came, God was greatly misunderstood. Actually, God is still greatly misunderstood, but that's because what Christ revealed is not accepted. Many of the points you've been bringing up, I actually agree with you. I'll mention a couple.

One is you mentioned that if God required blood to forgive, that wouldn't be a good thing; it wouldn't present God in a favorable light (these aren't your actually words, but I believe the point is compatible with what you were arguing). Well, Jesus Christ never taught that God needs blood to forgive. Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Jesus Christ Himself forgave sin, and He didn't require blood to do so. I think this is an example of God's being misunderstood.

Another example would be questions you've raised regarding the judgment. If the premises you hold in your questions were true, I would agree with your conclusions that such a God (or "god" as you put it) would be pretty miserable. However, I disagree with the premises, and would say this is another example of God's having been misunderstood.

The simple way of looking at the problem is that *sin* is the enemy. This was Jesus' message. Jesus came to save us from sin, which is not a legal trick to make changes to some books in heaven, but to actually change our lives, so that we love God and live for Him, as well as others, as opposed to self being king. I see this message throughout Christ's life and teachings in the Gospels.

I actually have more to say on this, but this is already long. At any rate, to answer your question, Jesus Christ is the standard of truth. The Scriptures, and other writings, such as Ellen White's, are useful in that they point us to Him. (more later)

[pnattmbtc]

c:And yet you are perfectly willing to accept the idea that god would raise possibly billions of the evil dead and allow them to suffer simply to make a point?...

Actually you still haven't given me a reason why God would raise the evil dead simply to watch them die.

Me:No, I've not implied this. I've denied this. I continue to deny this. What's more, I request you stop doing this. I've written quite a lot, so please quote something I've written. That's fair, isn't it? If you see something in what I've written that implies the things you're accusing me of, please point them out.

c:OK, I think I need some clarification here as well.

Do you think this vision that I have referenced is an actual occurrence in the future?

[cardw]

I need some more clarification before I answer, because I want to be clear about exactly what you are saying.

Quote:

I think it's a vision of an occurrence in the future.

Do you think that this vision is a literal description of what happens including the suffering for days?

Do you believe that it is a literal burning of their flesh as described in the vision?

Quote:

Yes, most of the evil dead. Exceptions would be those who had no idea of what they were doing.

And what evidence do you base this on?

And if someone didn't know what they were doing, how come they aren't allowed to be made aware and make a choice?

Quote:

Regarding the purposes of visions, that covers quite a lot of ground. One thing is to reveal God's character and plans.

And how does this vision reveal God's character?

Quote:

More obscure texts should be interpreted in the light of less obscure ones. That's the way one always works in an interpreting an author, whether inspired or not.

What do you do when they contradict each other? Do you throw one out?

How do you determine if a text is simply wrong?

Quote:

In my opinion, this is because you have not understood Him. This is why I've suggested starting with Christ. Do you think Christ was good?

What standard are we using to determine if Christ was good?

Quote:

The best evidence I know is Christ.

How does Christ constitute evidence since even the existence of Christ is unverifiable. The best evidence that I have read is that Jesus is a myth.

That doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the philosophy of Jesus, but most of the gospel story is a god/man myth typical of the ancient world. And there is a lot of evidence for that.

Quote:

Interestingly, according the Bible, everyone knows God exists, because God has revealed Himself to each one.

I'm not saying there is no greater source, but I find it highly unlikely that the god you or the Bible are describing exists. But, I am open to listening to your views.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Me:I think it's a vision of an occurrence in the future.

Do you think that this vision is a literal description of what happens including the suffering for days?

No, I don't think it's literal. I think it's a vision.

Quote:

Do you believe that it is a literal burning of their flesh as described in the vision?

First of all, the vision does not speak of a literal burning of their flesh (the word "flesh" doesn't appear at all). Secondly, it seems obvious to me that it's not literal. For example:

Quote:

The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.

This could hardly be literal, could it? It sure doesn't seem to me that it could be. There's one particle of flesh remaining, and the person is still alive? That doesn't make sense, does it?

Quote:

Me:Yes, most of the evil dead. Exceptions would be those who had no idea of what they were doing.

c:And what evidence do you base this on?

From other things Ellen White wrote on the subject. Also, it follows common sense.

Quote:

And if someone didn't know what they were doing, how come they aren't allowed to be made aware and make a choice?

They could have been mentally retarded, for example.

Quote:

Me:More obscure texts should be interpreted in the light of less obscure ones. That's the way one always works in an interpreting an author, whether inspired or not.

c:What do you do when they contradict each other? Do you throw one out?

How do you determine if a text is simply wrong?

Usually people don't contradict themselves. It's possible one might misspeak, and in this case one looks at the preponderance of evidence, what the person has said on other occasions. By looking at the argument being presented, at the principles involved, one can come to conclusions as to the intend of an author.

As to whether something is wrong, that's something one needs to determine oneself. Basically, one compares what's written with what one believes, and sees if there's any way of reconciling the former with the latter, assuming one has the desire to do so. If one has no desire to do so, one could simply use oneself as the authority by which to decide whether things are right or not. If one has the perspective that God is trying to communicate with us by means of prophets and such, one can assume that one may not be understanding the text as God intended it to be transmitted. Surely, given that God is perfect, and good, the problem is not on His end. Eliminating Him as a possibility leaves human intermediaries and human receivers.

Quote:

Me:In my opinion, this is because you have not understood Him. This is why I've suggested starting with Christ. Do you think Christ was good?

c:What standard are we using to determine if Christ was good?

I don't see what you could use other than your own conscience/experience/etc. Determining whether Christ is good or not is a question each of us needs to decide for ourselves.

Quote:

Me:The best evidence I know is Christ.

c:How does Christ constitute evidence since even the existence of Christ is unverifiable.

This took me by surprise. I don't know anyone who questions that Christ existed. I've not heard this before.

Quote:

The best evidence that I have read is that Jesus is a myth.

I've never heard this idea before. What evidence are you thinking of?

Quote:

That doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the philosophy of Jesus, but most of the gospel story is a god/man myth typical of the ancient world. And there is a lot of evidence for that.

I've never heard this idea before. What evidence?

[cardw]

Quote:

No, I don't think it's literal. I think it's a vision.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Do you believe that it is a literal burning of their flesh as described in the vision?

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

First of all, the vision does not speak of a literal burning of their flesh (the word "flesh" doesn't appear at all). Secondly, it seems obvious to me that it's not literal. For example:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This could hardly be literal, could it? It sure doesn't seem to me that it could be. There's one particle of flesh remaining, and the person is still alive? That doesn't make sense, does it?

[pnattmbtc]

1.Your question and point about the virgin birth of Christ doesn't appear to make any sense to me. You argue that it must be a vision because it doesn't make sense. That has nothing to do with my argument, which is that taking what was said in the vision as literal doesn't make sense. This is often true of visions, which are often symbolic.

2.To determine if something is symbolic or not usually just requires some common sense.

3.Regarding the mentally retarded, my point was that God would NOT condemn such, and others who didn't know what they were doing.

4.Regarding Christ's not existing, I've never heard of that idea before. Are you familiar with "Evidence that demands a verdict?" Where was the article you referred to arguing that Jesus Christ didn't exist? Regarding extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus existed, how about Josephus, the Gospel of Thomas?

5.I did post-graduate work in Mathematics, and am well acquainted with logic and what constitutes proof.

[Guest]

So, I assume that you take it literally when it comes to the virgin birth of Christ. How do you know that the virgin birth is not a vision since it doesn't seem to make sense? "Who could have a baby without a father! I mean that's really crazy. Certainly it must be a vision."

Why would you take the virgin birth and all the miracles of Jesus literally and not this vision by Ellen White? If you are going to use the rule of common sense then it must be applied equally otherwise its not a rationale at all.

Excellent question.