"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Yesterday I wrote:

Quote:

John, on 3/16 I wrote the following:

John317, please respond to #344711, or #344618. (#344711 was a request to respond to #344618).

This was post #344837.

This is almost a week now I'm asking you to respond to #344837.

Yes, I've responded to post #344618 at least once before. See post#345677.

I will eventually get around to answering every post and every question, but I can't do it all at once. Please be patient. I have days when I can't sit at the computer for longer than a few minutes at a time.

By the way, there are dozens of questions and posts I've directed to you for which I have seen no answers, and others for which you wrote responses but which didn't really answer my question.

[pnattmbtc]

This is less than rewarding on two levels - 1) You omitted the context of my post, and 2) You are refusing to answer my question.

Please note that I have repeatedly pleaded with you not to answer my question by referring me to something somebody else wrote. I am sincerely seeking to learn what you believe as it relates to the statement above. Ty does not address the point I am zeroing in on.

By the way, do you suspect I'm trying to trick you or push you into a corner? If so, please know that is not my intention. I suspect you are unwilling to clearly address the point because it could lead to questions aimed at asking why Jesus would do something (supernaturally prevent them from dying prematurely so they can fully pay their sin debt of death) that unnaturally prolongs intense pain and agony.

Sky sees these things similarly to me. Perhaps you'll have better success with him, and be able to understand him.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You still do not appear to have grasped or accepted the statements by Ellen White that during the one thousand years, Jesus in unison with the righteous decide the punishment of the wicked and metes out to them the portion they MUST suffer.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Please don't make these personal remarks. I've asked you to stop on a number of occasions.

Take me through her statements on EW 290-291, 52-53; GC 660-661 and explain your thinking about them, particularly as regards the phrases in bold letters above.

[pnattmbtc]

The great controversy is already won.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Why must they suffer this punishment? Because they are charged with high treason and rebellion against God and against the law of the universe. The wicked do not merely suffer the natural consequences of their sins but they MUST suffer the punishment of their guilt. It is this punishment for their guilt that is decided by Christ and the righteous during the 1000 years after they study the lives of the wicked, comparing them with the law of God. See 4 SP 364

Can you see the difference, then, between suffering the consequences of sin and being found guilty of sin and suffering punishment for violating the law?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I understood how you see this the first time you said it many times ago. I don't agree with your idea.

It is what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy clearly teach. There are natural consequences of sin and then there are positive punishments for guilt.

For instance: "'Behold ye,' said the angel, 'the saints, in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, and that which they must receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names.' This, I saw, was the work of the saints with Jesus through the one thousand years in the Holy City before it descends to the earth." EW 52, 53

Please tell what Ellen White says in this paragraph.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, I've responded to post #344618 at least once before. See post#345677.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Did God ever use compelling force to make Satan do something he did not do by choice?

See 1 SM 288: "At the command of Christ, [satan] was compelled to obey... He was compelled without another word to instantly desist and to leave the world's Redeemer."

Was Satan compelled to obey? Indeed he was. "SATAN WAS COMPELLED TO OBEY... HE WAS COMPELLED... TO INSTANTLY DESIST..."

This plainly states that God and Christ used compelling power to make Satan obey when he otherwise wouldn't have. According to you, that act of compelling Satan to obey was necessarily part of winning the great controversy. Therefore, you MUST believe that God has used compelling power to win the war against sin and Satan.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Satan has to be restrained or the Great Controversy could not be fought. God has to ensure a level playing field, so that free will decisions can be made by the participants.

Is that what Ellen White wrote, that God "restrained Satan"? No. She says that Satan was compelled to obey God.

Why not use the words she wrote?

It is obvious that God used compelling power to make Satan do something that he otherwise would not have done.

Let's use the word that Ellen White used. Satan was compelled to obey Christ. Do you agree?

God's purpose in destroying the world with the Flood and Sodom by fire was to ensure a level playing field. I believe God was right to do it.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I will eventually get around to answering every post and every question,

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I'm sure that won't happen. There was a while back where I presented a number of texts regarding the question of God and foreknowledge, which you said you would respond to me about, but never did, and that's long gone. I don't expect you to answer each and every post or question.

I wouldn't have said what I did if I wouldn't do it.

I have medical problems besides having a family, but if you stay with us, you will see my answers to all your posts and all your questions.

I'm aware of the questions you asked. Be patient, pnatt.

If you are patient, the thread will stay open and we'll have a good, fun discussion.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

It is what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy clearly teach. There are natural consequences of sin and then there are positive punishments for guilt.

For instance: "'Behold ye,' said the angel, 'the saints, in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, and that which they must receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names.' This, I saw, was the work of the saints with Jesus through the one thousand years in the Holy City before it descends to the earth." EW 52, 53

Please tell what Ellen White says in this paragraph.

Ok, Ellen White, in this paragraph, is quoting an angel, and then remarks on what she saw.

As I understand your thinking, you think something like the following will happen. The righteous will examine the life of some person, and look at each and every sin, and for each sin, with a paper and pencil, or some recording device, determine for how long a person should be burned. So they see someone curse, and say, "Ohh, that's worth 10 seconds of fire!" or someone commits adultery "Ohh, that's a bad one! 20 minutes!" and so forth. This accurately represents your idea? They look at each sin, calculate the burning time, and then add it up, and say, "ok, Marsha should be burned for 2 days, 4 hours, 12 minutes and 5 seconds." Is this an accurate representation of your view?

Regarding what I think, as I stated before, I believe that Jesus and the righteous are determining for how long each one will suffer. I don't believe the suffering is caused by an arbitrary process (i.e.,depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary"). The process I described in the paragraph above this one, which is how I understand your view, would be arbitrary, according to the primary definition of the word, unless you believe there is some law which tells the righteous and Jesus how much burning time each sin should result in, so that there is no individual discretion involved.

Regarding the "must receive" I understand "must" to mean ": be compelled by fate or by natural law to <what must be will be>" (Websters). Since the inevitable result of sin is suffering and death, this is what the wicked must receive. How long they will suffer is determined by the righteous and Jesus, where "determine" means "to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation <determine the answer to the problem>". "Mete" is an archaic term, which means "measure," which is a synonym for "determine." "Mete" can also mean "dole out punishment" where "dole" means "one's allotted share, portion, or destiny." So the righteous determine the allotted share, portion, or destiny of the wicked. GC 542 tells us that this destiny is fixed by the choice of the wicked.

Here's DA 764:

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

This emphasizes over and over that the destruction of the wicked comes as a result of what the wicked have chosen. She says:

Quote:

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

She says:

Quote:

God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God."

The language here is all one of direct consequence, from beginning to end. Where this is very clearly seen is here:

Quote:

Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

Had God "left" Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. "Left" indicates a natural consequence. It could hardly be said that God was leaving Satan to reap the full result of his sin if God were killing Satan by setting him on fire.

To make this even clearer she write that, "it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin." Of course if God killed Satan by setting him on fire, *that* would not have been apparent to heavenly beings to be the inevitable result of sin, because it wouldn't have been. Instead it would have been just what it appeared to be, NOT the inevitable result of sin, but an imposed penalty, as opposed to a direct consequence.

Her whole point here is that there is a direct consequence involved here, but this direct consequence would not have been seen had God allowed it to happen at that point. However, after the cross, God could allow it to happen, because the cross made clear that death is the direct consequence of sin.

This is what these paragraphs are in the chapter which is dealing with what Christ's death accomplished.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I wouldn't have said what I did if I wouldn't do it.

I have medical problems besides having a family, but if you stay with us, you will see my answers to all your posts and all your questions.

I'm aware of the questions you asked. Be patient, pnatt.

If you are patient, the thread will stay open and we'll have a good, fun discussion.

I think you're setting an unrealistic expectation, unless you have hours and hours and hours to dedicate to this. This is why I've been trying to help you sort our posts to respond to by indicating what I'm most interested in having responded to.

I've been being patient by continuing to ask questions I'd like answered. Like the one about how heaven could be imperiled. I asked that 20 times, but got an answer. I don't recall the details though. The foreknowledge question should probably be handled in it's own thread.

I have enjoyed the discussion, especially when it centers around discussing the issues involved, as opposed to other things. I'm very busy myself, so I understand very well the question of time constraints.

[pnattmbtc]

Is that what Ellen White wrote, that God "restrained Satan"? No. She says that Satan was compelled to obey God.

Why not use the words she wrote?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: It is what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy clearly teach. There are natural consequences of sin and then there are positive punishments for guilt.

For instance: "'Behold ye,' said the angel, 'the saints, in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, and that which they must receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names.' This, I saw, was the work of the saints with Jesus through the one thousand years in the Holy City before it descends to the earth." EW 52, 53

Please tell what Ellen White says in this paragraph.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Ok, Ellen White, in this paragraph, is quoting an angel,

What does the angel say? Could you tell in your own words what the angel of God told Ellen White?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: As I understand your thinking, you think something like the following will happen. The righteous will examine the life of some person, and look at each and every sin, and for each sin, with a paper and pencil, or some recording device, determine for how long a person should be burned. So they see someone curse, and say, "Ohh, that's worth 10 seconds of fire!" or someone commits adultery "Ohh, that's a bad one! 20 minutes!" and so forth. This accurately represents your idea? They look at each sin, calculate the burning time, and then add it up, and say, "ok, Marsha should be burned for 2 days, 4 hours, 12 minutes and 5 seconds." Is this an accurate representation of your view?

No, it isn't my view. My view is that during the one thousand years, Jesus and the righteous study the "records" of the lives of the wicked, comparing their lives with the law of God; and based on what they find, they will render a decision as to the portion which the wicked must suffer, according to their works. Then they write the decision against their names in the book of death. This is all done before the wicked are resurrected.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Regarding what I think, as I stated before, I believe that Jesus and the righteous are determining for how long each one will suffer.

OK, it sounds like you are saying that you believe Jesus and the righteous are looking to see how long the wicked "will suffer." Is this right?

But is this what Ellen White actually says? Notice what you do with her language. You change it to fit what you want to believe.

How? Like this:

Ellen White says, "the saints, in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body,... that which they must receive at the execution of the judgment ..."

So she says the righteous sit in "judgment" and "mete out to the wicked that which they MUST receive..."

BUT YOU SAY, "Jesus and the righteous are determining for how long each one WILL suffer."

What is different there? Ellen White tells us that Jesus "decides" and "metes out" "the portion which they MUST suffer." "Will suffer" is a lot different from "MUST suffer."

Also you appear to think that Jesus and the righteous look to see how much the wicked will suffer, whereas Ellen White says they "decide" and "mete out" the amount of suffering and record it against the names of the wicked in the book of death.

Can you see that if all Jesus is doing is looking to see how much the wicked will suffer, it is not really a judgment? In the judgment, Jesus and the righteous are actually making decisions about the suffering and the punishment of the wicked. Your idea of the judgment is clearly quite different from the biblical and SOP view. This becomes obvious from the way you have the need to change the meaning of the statements. You did the same earlier, where you substituted the word "restrained" for the word "compelled." These are hardly synonymns.

[Robert]

Ex 32:26 "If you're on the LORD's side, come over here to me!" Then all the Levites gathered around him. 27 He said to them, "This is what the LORD God of Israel says: Each of you put on your sword. Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, and kill your relatives, friends, and neighbors." 28 The Levites did what Moses told them, and that day about 3,000 people died.

Matt 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to oppose an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well. 40 If someone wants to sue you in order to take your shirt, let him have your coat too. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go two miles with him. 42 Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don't turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you this: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. 45 In this way you show that you are children of your Father in heaven.

These statements cannot be reconciled. No matter how much one twists, contorts and manipulates these statements are completely diametrically opposed.

[Robert]

God's Character In His People

It was so important to God to be accurately understood that He sent His own Son to reveal Him. We usually think of Christ as coming to save humans by offering Himself as a ransom for sin. While that is true, it is equally important and sometimes overlooked that He also came to reveal His Father's character to a fallen human race (John 10:30; 12:45:14:9; Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:6), thus underscoring Scripture's emphasis on the need of humans to know God accurately. Why would that need exist, if the world already understood?

The majority rejected Him, largely because they did not recognize His Father in Him. They wanted a replica of their view of the Old Testament God of war, who would free the nation from its humiliating bondage to the empire of Rome. What they got was an invitation to a Kingdom that dwelt in a converted heart, an opportunity to be better people, and the Judeo-Christian tradition has not yet reconciled the contrast between God as the Old Testament presents Him and as Christ presents Him in the New. Thus Christ was vilified and crucified as an imposter. Do we not deal with the same questions today regarding the contrast in character between Jesus and the sometimes brutal Old Testament God He came to reveal? Would we recognize our Lord today?

Scripture further says God intends to reproduce His character in humans who agree to be so molded. Yet that transformation cannot take place where humans have any uncertainties or misunderstandings as to what constitutes God's character. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are all shaped by our belief regarding God. In fact, that may be the single most powerful factor in making us who we are. From the atheist or agnostic who gives free rein to sin, because he has no hope beyond this life, to one who becomes a model citizen because he acknowledges that even a godless quasi-righteousness exalts a nation. From the religionist who refuses to carry arms in times of war to the genocidal maniac serving his concept of truth by stamping out God's "enemies". From everyday people going about the business of life to committed Christians pursuing a better understanding of the will of God. All are shaped to a greater or lesser degree by their own thoughts regarding God and eternity. Without an accurate understanding of who God is, humanity serves a false god. Without an accurate understanding of God's character, human character declines.

Given our traditional view of God, Christians (like their concept of Him) are gentle and kind much of the time, except when the situation seems to call for gossip or destructive criticism or indifference to human woe or venting destructive emotions or taking human life. Isn't this how we see God's ways? The human mind has an extraordinary capacity for kindness, except toward those "demonized" humans we believe God abhors. If we cause those to suffer, it's okay, we think. Doesn't God do the same?

Historically, the "church" has carried the traditional view of God to its logical conclusion, by itself burning the opposition. Religious bigots have bloodied the pages of history with unspeakable crimes, which surely flowed out of their picture of God.

Jesus predicted two thousand years ago that thus it would be. "The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he offers God service," He said (John 16:2). History confirms His prophecy. How could we, as Christians, have been so blind, so callous, so indifferent to human life? Jesus distills the answer down to its core. "These things they will do to you," He continues, "because they have not known the Father nor Me (v. 3). Because Scripture gives so many examples of God's wiping out His enemies, Christians have become confused regarding the interpretation of Jesus' words. They have concluded that when we destroy them, we're doing so as God's agents, but when they destroy us, they are fulfilling this prediction. We see our enemy as God's enemy and ourselves as His sword of justice, because for war to occur in the first place the warriors must be made to see their cause as righteous and the enemy's as evil. Yet is it not possible that Jesus meant that wherever people kill each other in the name of religion, neither side bears the signet of the living God?

It takes little imagination to see that the traditional view of God as One who can reach a point where He employs deadly force could lead to deplorable conditions where political power could be seen as a divine mandate to force the conscience of the politically weak. In czarist Russia, as well as pre-revolutionary France, for example, the church's connection with civil power engendered terrible abuses, causing an over-correction, which ended in atheistic regimes. Communism itself began as a protest against religious cruelty.

The Holocaust is a modern case in point, where a strong tradition of Judeo-Christian ethics didn't stop good and civilized people from supporting a regime which derived its power from the spilled blood of the governed and which attempted to exterminate an entire race perceived as undeserving of mercy. Where was the outrage, the conviction that causing the death of humans was intrinsically wrong?

Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo further illustrate the passion with which each side, believing it carries the flag of God in a righteous cause, kills and maims innocent civilians and destroys its own homeland in a seemingly endless bloodletting, presumably praying for the blessing of their fierce, nationalistic God before sallying forth on their missions of destruction. There are no wars bloodier than religious wars. Efforts to bring stability to such regions find religious fervor an almost impossible hurdle to overcome, politically generated peace accords notwithstanding.

And who can say if our traditional view of God as a destroyer has not in many ways encouraged the widespread secularization of our world, as thoughtful men and women see all this and note its inconsistency with mercy and justice hallmark attributes of the Christian God of whom they have been told. History offers an inexhaustible supply of illustrations of the subtle and pernicious effects the traditional view of a destroying God has had on civilization. It has opened the door to injustice and persecution throughout time; paved the way for intolerance, bigotry and the imposing of religious laws and duties upon an unconvinced people. If God can use force to get attention, the logic runs, then believers may use similar tactics to do his work. Civilizations do not rise higher morally than their concept of deity. "Ye are of your father . . . ," Said Jesus, "and the works of your father ye will do" (John 8:44, KJV).

And history confirms it. Without a settled conviction that hurting and destroying others is inherently wrong, society positions itself over an ethical bottomless pit, with no protective absolutes to break its moral fall. Where shall we find a model for such settled conviction, if we cannot find it in God? [MM Campbell, "Light on the Dark Side of God"]

[Robert]

-BC- EW

-TI- Early Writings of Ellen G. White

-CN- 3

-CT- Spiritual Gifts

-PR- 01

-PG- 294

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven [the atmosphere] is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, 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 remained. 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."

Again, either this is metaphorical language, or it is not. For example what is "the worm of life"? That phrase can't be found in the Bible or anywhere else in EGW's books.

But if it is not metaphorical then God would have to intervene supernaturally so that a person could be tormented. You can't be on fire and live past a few seconds. Also, you can't feel pain if you've passed out or your brain has been consumed.

The idea presented by John and others is that God can do as He pleases when it comes to justice. Of course what they fail to realize is that justice and torture are mutually exclusive.

If God wanted He could have angels hold a person's head underwater until he inhaled water. At that moment the angels could pull the person's head out of the water. And just when that person literally caught his breath the angels would do it again and again. That's sadism...it's not justice.

[Robert]

Job: 1:11 But now stretch out your hand, and strike everything he has. I bet he'll curse you to your face."

Did God refute Satan? Did He say, "why are you attributing these evils to Me when clearly you are the one doing these things"? No, instead He said, "Everything he has is in your power, but you must not lay a hand on him!"

Then Satan left the LORD's presence. Now what happens?

16 [messenger to Job] "Fire from God fell from heaven and completely burned your flocks and servants.....[another messenger to Job] "Your sons and your daughters...a great storm swept across the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It fell on the young people, and they died.

20 Job stood up, tore his robe in grief, and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother, and naked I will return. The LORD has given, and the LORD has taken away!

Clearly both Job 's servants (messengers) and Job (along with Satan) blame God for the disasters. Remember that Job lost his sons and daughters, cattle and servants. Who does He blame?

"The LORD has given, and the LORD has taken away!"

Who does the servant blame?

"Fire from God fell from heaven and completely burned your flocks and servants."

[pnattmbtc]

What does the angel say? Could you tell in your own words what the angel of God told Ellen White?

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, what you quoted from M. M. Campbell is brilliant. Many excellent points expressed in a few paragraphs. Here's one:

Quote:

Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are all shaped by our belief regarding God. In fact, that may be the single most powerful factor in making us who we are.

Continuing on, who we are involves our paradigm, which impacts how we interpret Scripture and the SOP. So we can read something from the SOP, like

Quote:

Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. 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."

and if our view of God's character is such that we believe He is capable of, or even inclined to, causing people to suffer torture by burning them, we read this, and interpret it literally, regardless of how much it forces common sense to do so (common sense would tell us that individual body parts burning disconnected from the rest of the body and brain cannot result in suffering, since without the brain a person can't recognize pain, or anything).

Others read this, and conclude that, on the face of it, it can't possibly be literal, because their concept of God's character does not allow God to be One who would set people on fire to cause them to suffer torture.

So the fundamental question is, "What is God like?" We need to understand this question BEFORE we try to understand the others, because if we're wrong on this, we'll get the others wrong.

[Robert]

[Job] "The LORD has given, and the LORD has taken away!"

[Messenger] "Fire from God fell from heaven...

Keep in mind, Pnattmbtc, that John has told us that Job's messenger is uninspired and therefore what he stated can't be trusted, but what John fails to realize is that Job attributes these same evils to God.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Again, either this is metaphorical language, or it is not. For example what is "the worm of life"? That phrase can't be found in the Bible or anywhere else in EGW's books.

But if it is not metaphorical then God would have to intervene supernaturally so that a person could be tormented. You can't be on fire and live past a few seconds.

Depending on how the fire is administered. EGW speaks of fire coming from below, which would be molten lava. It would certainly be true that one could not be engulfed by molten lava without quickly dying.

Quote:

Also, you can't feel pain if you've passed out or your brain has been consumed.

Or feel anything else. Or think at all.

Quote:

The idea presented by John and others is that God can do as He pleases when it comes to justice. Of course what they fail to realize is that justice and torture are mutually exclusive.

I find this odd as well. In our country, we don't burn people because that would be "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet supposedly God will do that which the laws of sinful, people who infinitely less kind, loving, or merciful than God, do not permit.

Quote:

If God wanted He could have angels hold a person's head underwater until he inhaled water. At that moment the angels could pull the person's head out of the water. And just when that person literally caught his breath the angels would do it again and again. That's sadism...it's not justice.

I wouldn't say "sadism." I would say "torture" though. "Sadism" implies that those doing this thing get some sort of pleasure out of it. Actually, looking up the definition of the word "sadistic," one of the definitions is "excessively cruel," so using this definition, what you're writing is correct.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

[Job] "The LORD has given, and the LORD has taken away!"

[Messenger] "Fire from God fell from heaven...

Keep in mind, Pnattmbtc, that John has told us that Job's messenger is uninspired and therefore what he stated can't be trusted, but what John fails to realize is that Job attributes these same evils to God.

The 2nd time around Satan physically assaults Job:

Job 2:7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. ... 9 His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" 10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

What does it mean by "Job did not sin"? Go back to Job chapter 1:

[satan to God] "But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face"

Did Job curse God? No! But he was wrong about God's character. How? He was attributing these evils unto God. This had taken him down the road of legalism, which is nothing more then appeasing an angry God in order to receive paradise.

Job's 3 friends didn't help....They were essentially stating the same thing, "God is punishing you because of some secret sin"....

[Archie777]

Archie: This is less than rewarding on two levels - 1) You omitted the context of my post, and 2) You are refusing to answer my question.

Please note that I have repeatedly pleaded with you not to answer my question by referring me to something somebody else wrote. I am sincerely seeking to learn what you believe as it relates to the statement above. Ty does not address the point I am zeroing in on.

By the way, do you suspect I'm trying to trick you or push you into a corner? If so, please know that is not my intention. I suspect you are unwilling to clearly address the point because it could lead to questions aimed at asking why Jesus would do something (supernaturally prevent them from dying prematurely so they can fully pay their sin debt of death) that unnaturally prolongs intense pain and agony.

P: Sky sees these things similarly to me. Perhaps you'll have better success with him, and be able to understand him.

The facts are, Pnatt, you agree Jesus must supernaturally prevent sinners from dying the instant they sin. Unless, of course, you have changed your mind. Have you?

You also believe Jesus will resurrect them and once again supernaturally keep them alive during final judgment. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact they will not immediately die in consequence of the natural and inevitable result of sin?

Do you think they naturally possess the ability to live with sin without dying? More sin means more time alive? How does that work? What will prevent them from dying after they pay their sin debt of death for their first sin? What enables them to live long enough to pay for the rest of their many sins?

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Ex 32:26 "If you're on the LORD's side, come over here to me!" Then all the Levites gathered around him. 27 He said to them, "This is what the LORD God of Israel says: Each of you put on your sword. Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, and kill your relatives, friends, and neighbors." 28 The Levites did what Moses told them, and that day about 3,000 people died.

Matt 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to oppose an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well. 40 If someone wants to sue you in order to take your shirt, let him have your coat too. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go two miles with him. 42 Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don't turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you this: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. 45 In this way you show that you are children of your Father in heaven.

These statements cannot be reconciled. No matter how much one twists, contorts and manipulates these statements are completely diametrically opposed.

Originally Posted By: Archie777

What do you think accounts for the contradiction? Why did Moses say God commanded him to command the Levites to kill those people?

You guys kill me....I ask you a question, you spin off or ask me the question back. Just admit you can't answer....Your silence speaks volumes.

Not only can't you answer the above, but no one has attempted to correct me when I pointed out that Christ took the sins of the whole world and yet suffered less than one day, while some sinners will suffer many days. How is this just?

Also, where God tells Moses, "Who has made man's mouth ? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind ? Is it not I, the LORD ?"...no one has touched this either.

Robert, you didn't ask a question in the post I responded to. You made a statement. And, I was interested in learning more about it.

To address the other point, I happen to believe Jesus took the sins of the world upon Himself at His incarnation. I also believe He still bears our sins in His body in the heavenly sanctuary. He will place them upon unsaved sinners and Satan when He returns.

In the same way bearing sins does not immediately result in sinners suffering and dying, so too, Jesus did not suffer or die the instant He began bearing the sins of the world. Nevertheless, Jesus suffered bearing sin for 33 years. He suffered more intensely during His wilderness experience. And, of course, He suffered ultimately in Gethsemane and on Golgotha.

Regarding your last point, I believe what God said about Himself. He does the things He says He does. However, it is also true He permits evil angels to similarly afflict sinners.

[Archie777]

Again, either this is metaphorical language, or it is not. For example what is "the worm of life"? That phrase can't be found in the Bible or anywhere else in EGW's books.

But if it is not metaphorical then God would have to intervene supernaturally so that a person could be tormented. You can't be on fire and live past a few seconds.

Here's what the Bible says about the worm:

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Also, you seem to think it is unlike God to mix metaphors and literal language. However, such speech occurs all throughout the Bible and the SOP. Is it impossible for someone to be alive and literally on fire while worms are eating them? Must God act to supernaturally prevent them from dying? If so, does it mean God is cruel and violent?

By the way, I, for one, do not believe sinning naturally results in death in the same way drinking poison naturally results in death. Instead, I believe sinners die the first death because God refuses them access to the tree of life. And, I believe they will die the second death because God will inflict them with punishment.

[Archie777]

A: I don't recall you attempting to explain why Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners. If you did, then I'm sorry to say I overlooked it somehow.

R: You did overlook it.... Jesus didn't command any such thing

Do you believe Jesus instructed Moses in the OT? If so, do you believe the following passages portray Jesus commanding Moses to kill sinners?

Leviticus

24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

Numbers

15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.