"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

Those are indeed clear and plain sentences and cannot be misunderstood. I agree.

[Robert]

Are you OK with that? Would you tell God to His face that He was wrong to do it?

No....It's wrong to drown innocent children....It's wrong to torment people...especially from a God who we are told is loving....

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Ellen White had tried everything she knew to help them change their misbehavior.

Quote:

ROBERT: So she reverts to the fear of God using legalistic statements. Doesn't make it right....Wrong is wrong.

Does it surprise you that she would make a mistake? It shouldn't. She never claimed to be perfect. She always said she was a sinner in need of a Savior. She was a prophet of God, yes, but you should know from your Bible study that even God's prophets make mistakes and commit sins. Paul was certainly not perfect and neither was Peter or James. Yet they were God's chosen instruments to communicate His messages to His church and the world. Why are you being so hard on Ellen White whom God chose even while knowing she would write that letter? If God can forgive her for writing it, can't you?

But speaking of "reverting to the fear of God" statements, what do you think of Christ's words, "I will forewarn you whom you shall fear. Fear him, which after he has killed has the power to cast you into hell; yes, I say to you, fear him." Luke 12: 5.

Is this an empty threat? Is Jesus just saying this or will God cast people into hell? I can't believe that Christ would say this unless it's true that God will indeed one day cast people into hell [Gk. gehenna].

What do you think?

Also, we need to remember this statement in the Scriptures: "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I command unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Mal. 4: 4-6.

Ellen White made a mistake when she was trying to turn the hearts of the childen to their father. She used the wrong kind of language to communicate this message to them.

But they all grew up to be men of God and used for His purposes. She was a great woman and a wonderful mother. But a sinner. Who should know that better than you.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: But of course it was a private letter, never intended for publication, and was motivated by a desire to help her "naughty" boys do the right thing at a time when she didn't know what else to say or do.

Quote:

ROBERT: Oh, so now you pretend to know her motives.....Then lengths some folks will go to cover up....

She states her motives, and we know that they were never intended for publication.

Go to the Ellen White Estate, if you have a chance, and do some research on the circumstances surrounding that letter.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: GC 614 (1911) DA 700. AA 152.

Quote:

ROBERT: And instead of taking on those verses and explaining them, you jump to Ellen....Hmmm?

I wrote a post you may not have seen. I told you that I will respond about the verses, and I also already told you that you and I probably are in substantial agreement as to their meaning. I would stay here writing at the computer all day but I can't-- I have to get up once in a while and go for walks and get exercise. So you will have to be patient. I will write as soon as I can.

By the way, what are your thoughts about those quotes from Ellen White? What is she saying? What are the meaning of the words?

[John317]

Are you saying that God is going to take only evil and bad people to heaven?

Not according to the Bible. There will be lots of former criminals and former bad people in heaven but not ones currently bad or criminal at the time they go to be with Christ. They will be changed people or they won't be there.

You see no difference between good people and bad? Are all people bad people to you?

The Bible itself calls people "good" and "perfect" and "righteous." And it does mean that they are only "good" because goodness is imputed them. It says that they obeyed God. (Gen. 6: 22;7: 1; Luke 1: 6. Does that mean they weren't sinners? No. So being "good" or "righteous" doesn't mean someone is sinless or absolutely perfect.

You apparently would make it appear that there is no difference between commandment-keepers and commandment-breakers, as if there is not a single person on earth who obeys God's commandments. Is it impossible, in your thinking, for people to obey God's law and keep the faith? If we say that, we are really joining in with the lies of the devil. He's the one who wants you to think that it's impossible for you to obey Christ and do what's right. Christ is there telling you that you can do it with His power. Who are you going to believe-- Satan or Christ?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Are you OK with that? Would you tell God to His face that He was wrong to do it?

Quote:

No....It's wrong to drown innocent children....It's wrong to torment people...especially from a God who we are told is loving....

I asked if you would tell God to His face that He is wrong to take human life, as in the Flood, and to destroy the wicked after the judgment. I assume that if you believe it's wrong of Him to do those things, you would tell Him that He's wrong, in your judgment. I wouldn't, because I trust Him to do what is best for His universe. If He were to tell me now that He never has killed a soul and that He won't destroy anyone, it wouldn't in the least effect my love and admiration for Him. I would simply ask Him why the Bible so often says He does destroy and that He does take human life. I would want to know why He didn't insprire the prophets to say the devil did all those things. I know the devil did many of those things, but God inspired both the Bible prophets and His latteer-day prophet to write that God did destroy and did order the Israelites to kill. I can't see how ordering the Israelites to kill is any different from God killing. If I tell someone to kill, I will be held resposnible if they go and commit the crime. So when He told Joshua to go destroy the wicked people, and Joshua did it, how is that any different from God's having done it?

But getting back to the downing of innocents and the killing of people in the Old Testmanet. Look at it from God's viewpoint: He alone knows the mind and heart. He alone is able to give eternal life to those children and adults. To God this first death is but a brief sleep. God is able to bring justice out of injustice. He can make injustice be as if it never happened, but only for those who put their hands in the hand of God and let Him lead them to His kingdom.

God is not really "tormenting" people when they are destroyed by fire. You might think of it as "tormenting" but that is not how it will be. It is sinners and sin being punished for their wickedness. Are you in rebellion against God for punishing sinners and destroying the devil? The Bible clearly states that they will be punished and that Satan and all who follow him will be ashes under the feet of the righteous. That can only happen if they are burned up in a fire. Study the end of Malachi and of Isaiah.

Do you think that the second death will be a matter of simply going to sleep? What is your picture in your mind's eye of the destruction of the wicked on the basis of all that the Scripture says about it? I'm sincerely interested.

I gotta go.

[Robert]

Do you think that the second death will be a matter of simply going to sleep?

No, a sleep death infers you will rise up....The 2nd death is goodbye to life forever because the hope of the resurrection, God, has abandoned you to your choice forever.

[Robert]

Are you in rebellion against God for punishing sinners and destroying the devil?

John, stop the self-righteous BS now....!

[pnattmbtc]

This is what I am talking about when I say that the emotions are too involved from the viewpoint of those who teach that God never destroys. It doesn't matter to me how God destroys Satan and the wicked. If God tells me that he never destoyed a single person, ever, I will be OK with Him. It will not affect my love and worship in the least.

[pnattmbtc]

p:I'm not making any representation of this site, nor even of the point being made, but simply pointing out that any time the Bible is read, judgment is involved, and it was very easy to find someone who shared Robert's opinion.

J:It may have been what we would think of as "lightning," but the point is that the Bible says it was from God and that it was in response to what Elijah said. Read again 2 Kings 1: 10-12. It doesn't say the fire, or lightning, came from Satan.

It's apparent from the verses cited that the "fire from God" was not coincidental but had a God-given purpose. In other words, it was not ordinary "lightning."

So the issue is not whether the fire from God was lightning, but whehter God was the source or origin of it.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

John317When I speak of "the plain language" of ...the Bible ... I'm talking about statements whose meanings are self-evident and don't require interpretation.

Quote:

ROBERT: Why does God say, in plain language, that He "was aroused against Israel and He [God] moved David . . . to . . . number Israel" when it was "Satan [who] stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel"? Yes?

Why did God say, in plain language, that "He [God] killed him [saul]" when clearly "Saul took a sword and fell on it"?

Why did God say, in plain language, that "I will harden his heart" when again clearly "Pharoah hardened his [own] heart"?

Why did God say, in plain language, "I...will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" when clearly it was "the destroyer"?

Why did God say, in plain language, "I will strike the Shepherd [Jesus]" when clearly God had "forsaken" Him.

Why does God say, in plain language, that He "sends... a powerful delusion" to those who reject the truth when clearly it is "lying wonders...and every kind of deception" from Satan through the man of sin?

Why does God state, in plain language, that He "maketh the dumb", "deaf" and " blind" when clearly His creation of mankind was "fearfully and wonderfully made" so that even David said, "Wonderful are your works"?

Why did God tell Satan, in plain language, that "you (Satan) incited Me [God] against him [Job] to destroy him without cause" when it was clearly Satan who caused all of Job's problems (see Job 1:12)?

Quote:

skyblue888: I can't fathom how anyone can read and ponder over what is stated above and not get the hint.

There is a prophecy in the Old Testament that in the very last days the "anger of the Lord" would be understood perfectly. Does not the post above contain a strong hint in connection with that?

Sky, can you give the reference to the Old Testament prophecy you refer to?

What we need to do is examine and discuss each one of those verses.

Those are indeed clear and plain sentences and cannot be misunderstood. I agree. I believe you and I would be in complete agreement with those verses. The difference is that you conclude that those verses show us how to interpret every verse dealing with God's judgments and destruction, even when that conclusion is contradicted by the plainest language of the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. (I will give some examples below.)

It has never been denied that there are times when God is portrayed as having done things that He permits Satan to do. That is something that happens in Scripture, and Ellen White herself speaks to this issue and principle. I've understood since I was a small child.

However, those verses, and that principle, does not account for everything the Bible and SOP teaches. The problem comes from thinking that since those verses show God doing that, it means that it applies in every case where God is described as destroying sinners or taking human life. It clearly does not apply. Ellen White and the Bible clearly distinguish between the judgments of God that God allows Satan to bring, and those judgments that God has brought directly and that He will again finally bring directly at the end.

For instance,

"A single angel [of God] destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces nbow ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere." GC 614 (1911)

NOTE: the above shows that God uses both kinds of judgments, those from the angels of God and those from the fallen angels. But it's important to see that she is not denying that there are times when God Himself destroys.

And the following paragraphs show that Ellen White taught that God's angels have caused destruction and human death:

"Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they [the all-powerful angels under God] slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men." DA 700. (Written in 1898)

"God's judgments were awakened against Jericho. It was a stronghold. But the Captain of the Lord's host Himself came from heaven to lead the armies of heaven in an attack upon the city. Angels of God laid hold of the massive walls and brought them to the ground." LDE 243

"The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber. It was with a different stroke that he [the angel of God] smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the RETRIBUTIVE JUDGMENT OF GOD." AA 152. (Written in 1911)

_________________________________________________________________

John, let us take the example of Jericho first, if you don't mind. Please be patient and take the time to read the following. Thank you.

"God's judgments were awakened against Jericho. It was a stronghold. But the Captain of the Lord's host Himself came from heaven to lead the armies of heaven in an attack upon the city. Angels of God laid hold of the massive walls and brought them to the ground." LDE 243

There are a number of statements in respect to the overthrow of the walls of Jericho, which, if understood in the way man naturally understands such words, would mean that God and His angels personally exercised the power of force to bring down those mighty battlements.

"How easily the armies of heaven brought down the walls that had seemed so formidable to the spies who brought the false report! The word of God was the only weapon used. The Mighty One of Israel had said: 'I have given into thine hand Jericho.' If a single warrior had brought his strength to bear against the walls, the glory of God would have been lessened and His will frustrated. But the work was left to the Almighty; and had the foundation of the battlements been laid in the centre of the earth, and their summits reached the arch of heaven, the result would have been the same when the Captain of the Lord's host led His legions of angels to the attack." Testimonies for the Church, 4:161, 162.

"The city of Jericho was devoted to the most extravagant idolatry. The inhabitants were very wealthy, but all the riches that God had given them they counted as the gift of their gods. They had gold and silver in abundance, but, like the people before the Flood, they were corrupt and blasphemous, and insulted and provoked the God of heaven by their wicked works. God's judgments were awakened against Jericho. It was a stronghold. But the Captain of the Lord's host Himself came from heaven to lead the armies of heaven in an attack upon the city. Angels of God laid hold of the massive walls and brought them to the ground." Testimonies for the Church, 3:264.

"The Lord marshalled His armies about the doomed city; no human hand was raised against it; the hosts of heaven overthrew its walls, that God's name alone might have the glory." The Review and Herald, March 15, 1887.

The most significant sentence in these statements is the one which says: "Angels of God laid hold of the massive walls and brought them to the ground."

It would seem that these words allow only one interpretation which is that the angels of God with Christ at their head, took hold of those walls with their hands and literally threw them to the ground. In doing so they did more than tear down buttresses of stone. There were people on those high walls. See Patriarchs and Prophets, 491.

It would have been impossible for there not to have been watchers, following every move the Israelites made. Such a singular performance as was being carried out by them could not help but command the attention and excite the curiosity of the people inside. No doubt the walls were crowded with people. Furthermore, there were people who actually lived in the wall as did Rahab who delivered the spies from her countrymen. See Joshua 2:15.

It follows that if the angels did in fact throw down those walls as we tend to understand those words as saying, then they took the lives of a great number of people.

If this is so, then we have finally found the long looked for evidence to prove that God did change because of sin and did become a destroyer of life.

God had gone on record to say that He does not deal with the sin problem by the use of physical force. He does not stand toward the sinner as the executioner of the sentence against transgression, but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. God does not destroy. He destroys no man. From His kingdom, every weapon of coercion is banished.

If the Lord were to violate those principles in just one situation, it would be all that was necessary to give Satan the victory in the great controversy. Therefore, our understanding of the principles which govern God's character compels us to look more deeply into the problem in an endeavour to see in what sense the angels laid hold of the walls and brought them to the ground.

However, if such a search for the moment at least, fails to bring to light exactly what the angels did do, then we do not lose faith in the great principles. We simply understand that this is but one of the hooks left to hang our doubts on if we want to do such. God always leaves some points unexplained to see if we will trust Him in the unknown for what we know of Him already.

The explanation for any difficult Scripture must be found in some other part of the same Scriptures. In a problem like this the most likely place to find such an explanation, is in a similar incident.

Such is to be found in the fall of Jerusalem, which, like Jericho, had filled up the cup of iniquity. From it, the Spirit of God had also departed. Its walls were likewise torn to the ground with not one stone being left upon another. It is to be expected that the Lord would describe its destruction in the same language as in Jericho's fall. Research quickly shows that He does.

"Men will continue to erect expensive buildings, costing millions of money; special attention will be called to their architectural beauty, and the firmness and solidity with which they are constructed; but the Lord has instructed me that despite the unusual firmness and expensive display, these buildings will share the fate of the temple in Jerusalem. That magnificent structure fell. Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone was not left one upon another that was not thrown down." The SDA Bible Commentary, 5:1098,1099.

Consider how explicitly it declares that "angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction so that not one stone was left upon another that was not thrown down." Before He was crucified, Jesus solemnly declared that not one stone would be left upon another in the temple. Now it is declared that the angels were sent to do this work of destruction so that the fulfilment of Christ's words was assured. Just as the language used in the fall of Jericho tends to give the picture of angels personally laying

hold of the stones and throwing them down, so this statement tends to give the same impression as far as the fall of Jerusalem is concerned.

The Romans, once they had captured the temple, razed it and much of the city to the ground making certain that not one stone was left upon another. Perhaps the greatest authority on Jewish history is Josephus who was actually present at the fall of Jerusalem. See The Great Controversy, 33. His record of the event is as follows:

"Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison; as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valour had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind." Wars of the Jews, Book VII, Chapter one, paragraph one, by Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.

This notable historian's report is confirmed in The Great Controversy, 35. "Both the city and the temple were razed to their foundations, and the ground upon which the holy house had stood was 'plowed like a field.'"

Here we have two records of what took place back there. One declares that the angels did the work of destruction, while the other clearly shows that it was at Caesar's orders and by the strength and activity of his soldiers that the city was razed.

This would be a hopeless contradiction if we had not studied the way in which the Bible is its own dictionary and the way in which God is said to destroy. Firstly, it is clear that the angels did not do the work of destruction as man does it. That is, they did not themselves take those stones and throw them to the ground. Yet, at the same time, it must be recognized that they did a work which resulted in those walls being thrown to the ground till not one single stone was left upon another. But, they certainly did not use the soldiers as direct servants at their personal direction and command, to tear down those mighty bastions.

So what did the angels do? How did they go about a mission of destruction?

The angels'role is to hold back the four winds of strife so that they might not blow on the earth. Let those winds be released and there is the terrible outbreaking of human anger and natural power. Those angels hold on to their work whilever God's protection is called for because of the presence of some who trust in Him. But when the time comes when that is no longer necessary or possible, then angels are sent from Heaven to instruct the holding angels to let go. In this way the angels come from Heaven on a mission of destruction. Let it be emphasized once more that while this involves a judgment on God's part, it is not His arbitrary act. He assesses the situation to be such that to remain any longer must be to force His presence where it is totally unwanted, and this He cannot do. The restraining angels feel this pressure on them to leave but they await God's command before they do so. These instructions are conveyed to them by messenger angels, who, because of this responsibility, are called messengers of destruction, which in fact they are.

It is the picture of a body of angels holding and releasing upon receipt of a clearance to do so by other angels.

The chronicle of Jerusalem's destruction bears out the facts recited above. The tearing down of that city into individual stones was the end result of a series of causes. The Romans did it as the expression of their white-hot anger and hatred for the Jews. That in turn, was the result of the behaviour of the Jews who had given the Romans so much trouble, had shown such a spirit of rebellion, and had been so ungrateful for the favours the Romans desired to show them. That spirit, consequently, was the result of the Jews' persistent determination to institute their ways in the place of God's, and of their continual rejection of the appeals of mercy to them.

For the apostasy of the Jew and the fury of the Roman to race away uncontrolled, the angels of God had to fully and totally withdraw their restraining power over the evil passions of men. This they did. That accomplished, the infuriated Roman soldiery were so totally uncontrolled that not even their officers, generals, or Titus himself, could control or restrain them. Titus had determined to preserve the temple and had given specific orders that it should not be burned, but his orders were flouted. Even though he rushed in among them, and demanded obedience, it was as if he were not even there. Here is part of Josephus' account of the burning of the temple.

"And now a certain person came running to Titus, and told him of this fire, as he was resting himself in his tent after the last battle; whereupon he rose up in great haste, and as he

was, ran to the holy house, in order to have a stop put to the fire; after him followed all his commanders, and after them followed the several legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great clamour and tumult raised, as was natural upon the disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire; but they did not hear what he said, though he spake so loud, having their ears already dinned by a greater noise another way; nor did they attend to the signal he made with his right hand neither, as still some of them were distracted with fighting, and others with passion; but as for the legions that came running thither, neither any persuasions nor any threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one's own passion was his commander at this time; and as they were crowding into the temple together, many of them were trampled on by one another, while a great number fell among the ruins of the cloisters, which were still hot and smoking, and were destroyed in the same miserable way with those whom they had conquered: and when they were come near the holy house, they made as if they did not so much as hear Caesar's orders to the contrary; but they encouraged those that were before them to set it on fire. As for the seditious they were in too great distress already to afford their assistance, [toward quenching the fire;] they were everywhere slain, and everywhere beaten; and as for a great part of the people, they were weak and without arms, and had their throats cut wherever they were caught. Now, round about the altar lay dead bodies heaped one upon another; as at the steps going up to it ran a great quantity of their blood, whither also the dead bodies that were slain above [on the altar] fell down." Wars on the Jews, Book VI, Chapter four, paragraph six.

"The blind obstinacy of the Jewish leaders, and the detestable crimes perpetrated within the besieged city, excited the horror and indignation of the Romans, and Titus at last decided to take the temple by storm. He determined, however, that if possible it should be saved from destruction. But his commands were disregarded. After he had retired to his tent at night, the Jews, sallying from the temple, attacked the soldiers without. In the struggle, a firebrand was flung by a soldier through an opening in the porch, and immediately the cedar-lined chambers about the holy house were in a blaze. Titus rushed to the place, followed by his generals and legionaries, and commanded the soldiers to quench the flames. His words were unheeded. In their fury the soldiers hurled blazing brands into the chambers adjoining the temple, and then with their swords they slaughtered in great numbers those who had found shelter there. Blood flowed down the temple steps like water. Thousands upon thousands of Jews perished. Above the sound of battle, voices were heard shouting, 'Ichabod!'—the glory is departed.

"Titus found it impossible to check the rage of the soldiery; he entered with his officers, and surveyed the interior of the sacred edifice. The splendor filled them with wonder; and as the flames had not yet penetrated to the holy place, he made a last effort to save it, and springing forth, again exhorted the soldiers to stay the progress of the conflagration. The centurion Liberalis endeavored to force obedience with his staff of office; but even respect for the emperor gave way to the furious animosity against the Jews, to the fierce excitement of battle, and to the insatiable hope of plunder." The Great Controversy, 33, 34.

When soldiers who have had instilled into them the strongest discipline of respect and obedience to the Emperor, are so totally maddened with rage that they completely ignore orders he has personally given, it is manifested that human passion is rioting in its most unrestrained form. Such outrage was possible only if the angels had vacated their positions as withholders of the winds of strife. They had no further influence over those men.

They never step down of their own volition, but only on the receipt of orders from on high. These are brought to them by messenger angels commissioned to fly swiftly with the advice that the time has come when men have chosen to reject God so utterly that He can no longer provide them with protection. The advent of these messengers at the outposts, heralds the unleashing of destructive forces, thus making them, in a certain sense, angels on a mission of destruction. The result was the full release of the Romans' infuriated hostility toward the Jews, which would not be appeased even when, with their own hands, they had torn the city apart.

This casts great light on the fall of Jericho, teaching how the same descriptions are to be understood in the destruction of the Canaanite city. The only difference between the overthrow of Jericho as compared to Jerusalem is that, while in the latter it was the unleashing of the furies in men which did the work, at Jericho it was the release of the pent-up forces of nature. The role of the angels in both instances was the same. They acted only and entirely in harmony with the principles of God's kingdom. Christ, Himself, led the messengers to the walls of Jericho to give the sad message that that people had forfeited all divine protection, leaving God with no option but to call away the restraining angels. Then the furies of nature, hitherto held under control, burst forth to flatten the proud metropolis. The walls were hurled to the ground. Yet, the word of God says that the angels did it. Surely, from the way in which Bible interprets itself, the time has come when it is understood in what sense the angels did this. They had a part to play, the result of which was that destruction. That part was to carry the message of doom to the restraining

angels. Then the terror followed.

If careful comparison is made between the language used to describe the destructions of both Jericho and Jerusalem, all difficulties will disappear. Just what the angels did will be quite clear. Once more it will be confirmed that they did not act any differently from the revelation of God's character as given by Christ when He came to the earth.

Back to you John.

sky

[skyblue888]

Matt 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

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.

This statement has its place but it is obvious that here the Holy Spirit did not mean these words to be literal for no one can feel pain if the brain is gone. It has to be a figure of speech.

sky

[Robert]

I think it just goes to show that you see no connection between your beliefs and either God's character or morality.

This type of mentality reminds me of how people act around their boss....They'll kiss butt to his face, but when he is gone they'll talk bad of him. The same is done with God....So folks will say, "Whatever God does in fine with me"...but that's really "butt kissing" because if God is a mean SOB then they want to be one of His favorites.

Well, it ain't fine with me if God does worse than Satan. Agape draws me to God...torturing...and just plain meanness drives me away. He can't be both....

[teresaq]

was it really that difficult to understand, john?

or is this just a way of not dealing with the issue? or perhaps you are just reading so fast you did not get the full idea and intent meant?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): why not be truthful and say that "you" do not believe they apply each and every time....

and that in "your" mind it is clear,...

My previous post was "truthful." If you believe it wasn't truthful, tell what was said that you believe isn't truthful or that is in error.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I think it just goes to show that you see no connection between your beliefs and either God's character or morality.

This type of mentality reminds me of how people act around their boss....They'll kiss butt to his face, but when he is gone they'll talk bad of him. The same is done with God....So folks will say, "Whatever God does in fine with me"...but that's really "butt kissing" because if God is a mean SOB then they want to be one of His favorites.

i think thats very true....

i see it in many situations.

but i dont think anyone is fooled, and certainly not God who can read our "hearts" (lol).

i remember when i first caught onto that, that God knows exactly what i am thinking and feeling.

[teresaq]

regarding eternal torment vs death the messenger of the Lord says,

Then Satan leads another class who are fearful and timid to commit sin; and after they have sinned, he holds up before them that the wages of sin is (not death, but) an eternal life in horrible torments, to be endured through the endless ages of eternity. Satan improves the opportunity, and magnifies before their feeble minds the horrors of an endless hell, and takes charge of their minds, and they lose their reason.{1SG 116.2}

I inquired why all these delusions should be suffered to take effect upon the minds of men, when the angels of God were powerful, and if commissioned, could easily break the enemy's power. ... {1SG 116.3}

I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established views, governed by tradition. {1SG 117.1}

[pnattmbtc]

i remember when i first caught onto that, that God knows exactly what i am thinking and feeling.

And He doesn't get ticked off. Nothing but love, mercy and compassion emanates from Him. (I guess sometimes sadness and disappointment too, but He's so careful not to overwhelm us with this).

Amazing!

[teresaq]

notice in the paragraph by ellen white at the bottom that there is absolutely no condemnation from God on how man feels about the idea of eternal torment. not only that, man is "justified" in "feeling" that way, letting his "emotions" be too involved, in whether he can love a "god" like that. and if that is so, then there is no condemnation from God, the true God, for feeling that way about comparatively "temporary torment". so that leaves just man to judge and condemn that which God, the true God, does not.

Originally Posted By: John317

This is what I am talking about when I say that the emotions are too involved from the viewpoint of those who teach that God never destroys. It doesn't matter to me how God destroys Satan and the wicked. If God tells me that he never destoyed a single person, ever, I will be OK with Him. It will not affect my love and worship in the least.

You're written this before. I think it just goes to show that you see no connection between your beliefs and either God's character or morality. It's just an intellectual exercise. You think you have the right idea because you interpret certain passages in a certain way, but you can't have any conviction of being right because it doesn't matter morally one way or the other.

Others see that there is a moral difference, and that it makes a difference in what it says about God.

Quote:

However, it's apparent to me that those who believe God never destroys or kills, would not be able to love God if He told them that He killed and destroyed the wicked with fire, as the Bible makes plain.

Again, you interpret "as the Bible makes plain" to mean "set the wicked on fire to make them suffer torture," and, not surprisingly, there are those who take issue with this.

Quote:

Therefore, those who feel this way about God have an emotional basis for their view of these matters, and these emotions seem to me to determine their theology, rather than the other way round. We should consider the Bible evidence totally apart from emotions.

As I recall, according to the SOP, it's a sin to consider the cross and not feel emotions.

[skyblue888]

regarding eternal torment vs death the messenger of the Lord says,

Then Satan leads another class who are fearful and timid to commit sin; and after they have sinned, he holds up before them that the wages of sin is (not death, but) an eternal life in horrible torments, to be endured through the endless ages of eternity. Satan improves the opportunity, and magnifies before their feeble minds the horrors of an endless hell, and takes charge of their minds, and they lose their reason.{1SG 116.2}

I inquired why all these delusions should be suffered to take effect upon the minds of men, when the angels of God were powerful, and if commissioned, could easily break the enemy's power. ... {1SG 116.3}

I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established views, governed by tradition. {1SG 117.1}

______________________________________________________

Wow!!!! Now these are very interesting statements, especially the last one. I wonder what these words were that they changed. Do you think it had to do with this subject?

sky

[skyblue888]

notice in the paragraph by ellen white at the bottom that there is absolutely no condemnation from God on how man feels about the idea of eternal torment. not only that, man is "justified" in "feeling" that way, letting his "emotions" be too involved, in whether he can love a "god" like that. and if that is so, then there is no condemnation from God, the true God, for feeling that way about comparatively "temporary torment". so that leaves just man to judge and condemn that which God, the true God, does not.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

You're written this before. I think it just goes to show that you see no connection between your beliefs and either God's character or morality. It's just an intellectual exercise. You think you have the right idea because you interpret certain passages in a certain way, but you can't have any conviction of being right because it doesn't matter morally one way or the other.

Others see that there is a moral difference, and that it makes a difference in what it says about God.

Quote:

However, it's apparent to me that those who believe God never destroys or kills, would not be able to love God if He told them that He killed and destroyed the wicked with fire, as the Bible makes plain.

Again, you interpret "as the Bible makes plain" to mean "set the wicked on fire to make them suffer torture," and, not surprisingly, there are those who take issue with this.

Quote:

Therefore, those who feel this way about God have an emotional basis for their view of these matters, and these emotions seem to me to determine their theology, rather than the other way round. We should consider the Bible evidence totally apart from emotions.

As I recall, according to the SOP, it's a sin to consider the cross and not feel emotions.

Quote:

It is beyond the power of the human mind to estimate the evil which has been wrought by the heresy of eternal torment. The religion of the Bible, full of love and goodness, and abounding in compassion, is darkened by superstition and clothed with terror. When we consider in what false colors Satan has painted the character of God, can we wonder that our merciful Creator is feared, dreaded, and even hated? The appalling views of God which have spread over the world from the teachings of the pulpit have made thousands, yea, millions, of skeptics and infidels. {4SP 356.2} [/quote']

____________________________________________________________________

Yes and that goes with the teaching that He will set people on fire and make sure that the fire does not go out until the sinner has fully paid his debt.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Can we wonder that our merciful Creator is feared, dreaded, and even hated?

Quote:

That goes with the teaching that He will set people on fire and make sure that the fire does not go out until the sinner has fully paid his debt.

It sure does. It's pretty amazing that this isn't seen.

[Guest]

What was Ellen White thinking when she wrote those things? Do you think part of her writings were inspired by Satan?

I believe what she says, and I have no fear, dread, or hatred towards God.

[teresaq]

your remarks dont appear to have much to do with what was being discussed....could you tie them in?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

What was Ellen White thinking when she wrote those things?

I think she was thinking that Satan misrepresents God's character by making Him appear to be cruel.

Quote:

Do you think part of her writings were inspired by Satan?

I think it's more likely that questions like this are. Do you disagree?

Quote:

I believe what she says, and I have no fear, dread, or hatred towards God.

Human beings have a great capacity to deceive themselves, especially in things like thinking they don't fear God when they do. Let's consider an example. I don't think it's possible that a person who thinks God will set people on fire to suffer for all eternity in hell would not be afraid of such a God. What do you think?