There are four of them that I can think of right off, and yes, they look at everything through one tiny little peep hole. If it doesn't line up with that little peep hole, they reject it outright, and dispose of it.

They won't even consider quotes and texts that deny their position. They insist that their "universal principle" covers everything. It makes you wonder why God went to the trouble of having Ellen White and the other prophets write all that other stuff.

This thread is their home base so to speak, at least until someone starts another one similar to it. I only come here when I am feeling extra tolerant. I can't afford to spend too much time arguing about this nonsense. There is way too much truth to be studied. God is displeased when we waste our time.

These questions apply to you as well, right?

They're interesting questions, so let's consider them. First of all, I think all will agree that God will punish and destroy the wicked. The difference of opinion has to do with the mechanism involved, if the punishment is directly related to the sin of the wicked (i.e., a natural consequence), or something artificially applies (i.e., not an organic cause of the sin itself).

For example, sin is based on the principle of selfishness: "me first." This "me first" principle leads, of itself, to suffering, misery and death. So there is condemnation, or punishment, inherent to sin itself.

This is just one example.

Another example is the conscience. Ty Gibson wrote some nice thought regarding this, which I'll post separately, as it's a bit long. (I actually posted this earlier, but I don't know if you read the entire thread. Probably not, since it's quite long).

As light comes to the guilty conscience, the result is suffering. This is a punishment which is directly related to the sin itself. The more sin, the more suffering. So the punishment is in proportion to the sin, but the process is a natural one, as opposed to an artificial or imposed one.

The idea that many appear to have is that punishment must be imposed in order to be punishment; it cannot be something which is a natural consequence of sin. But I see no reason whatsoever to assume that this is the case. There are many examples of the natural results of sin being termed as punishment, for example, the disease which comes as the result of abusing the laws of health is a frequent one.

So it's possible for God to punish and destroy the wicked by allowing the result of their choices to come to pass. It's not necessary that an artificial or imposed process must be used to do so.

DA 764 says:



This describes a process which comes as a natural consequence. The destruction of the wicked comes as the natural result of the choices they themselves have made. They cut themselves off from life, by separating themselves from God. They place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. They glory of God (His character), who is love, will destroy them. They are destroyed by God's character of love because they have chosen an antagonistic principle to live by, selfishness, which cannot coexist with agape. This is a shortcoming of sin, the inevitable result of which is death.

God allows the wicked to reap the full result of their choice. This is their punishment.

Regarding the next ones:



by having a leg up, it's not question of being better or smarter than someone else, if that's what you're getting at, but of interpreting revelation in a consistent way, which takes all the evidence into consideration.

Regarding merely hoping to be right, I don't think this is helpful question. Nobody is merely hoping to be right, but forming an opinion based on consider the evidence. We come to different conclusions because of having different assumptions, different paradigms, seeing things differently, and handling the evidence differently.

Regarding:



it would depend on the mechanism involved. If the idea is that God sets people on fire to burn alive, being tortured, shrieking in agony for days as their flesh burns, I wouldn't want any part of that (by which I mean, not this happening to me, but a government that is administered in such a way). However, I don't believe its too much to hope for that God will punish and destroy the wicked in a way which is in harmony with the principles which Jesus Christ taught and lived by. GC 541-543 goes into this in detail, stating that the principles of kindness, mercy and love are the principles by which God judges the wicked.



I'm not certain in regards to all the details, but absolutely certain in regards to the principles. The principles of love, mercy and kindness will be applied. God won't treat people any differently than Jesus Christ did. He won't be setting people on fire to burn for days to suffer torture as a form of punishment.



I'm not sure what this is asking, but there's certainly a great risk involved in not knowing God's character. If we think He's one way, when He's really quite another, there is a great risk that we wouldn't be happy spending eternity in His presence. That's why it's so important we get it (God's character) right, and why Satan works so hard to misrepresent it.

Actually there's an error here, which persists even though it's been correct many times. It's unfortunate when people don't listen to the views of others to here what's actually being said. It's fine to reject an idea that one disagrees with, but in disagreeing with another it better, and fairer, to disagree with what the other party is actually saying.

God does destroy, but how? That's the question. Does God destroy by taking direct action to destroy, or does He remove His protection, and destroy by that means?

Actually, everyone agrees that God destroys by removing His protection. There's no disagreement on this point, so it's rather odd that some persist in speaking of those who believe that God does not destroy. The difference is that some believe that God destroys by two methods, sometimes by removing His protection and allowing destruction to occur, and other times by directly causing it Himself, while others believe that it is not necessary for God to take direction action Himself to cause destruction, and that such an act would be contrary to His character, and contrary to what He has revealed.



This is a lie.



I only know of one person (on the side of the question that God destroys sometimes by removing His protection and sometimes by taking direct action) who is willing/able to carry on a conversation on this subject by considering the arguments being presented, answering questions, and presenting counter-arguments, and that's John317. Instead of this, what we see a lot of is name-calling, false accusations, and misrepresentations of the ideas with which one does not agree.

The very first thing one should be able to do is to be able to explain the view of the one with whom one disagrees in such a way that the person would agree, "Yes, that's what I believe." I would be shocked if Richard was able to do this, because, based on his posts, he's not really interested in listening to positions which differ from his own to hear what's really being said.

I hope Archie, as a newcomer, is one who will listen. Not necessarily to agree, but at least to hear and understand what's being said, and be able to discuss things in a constructive way.



This is an example of the attitude I was mentioning previously. I think not "wasting time" here would be an excellent plan for those thinking in such a way as voiced here.

This is a lie. I'll giva an example: When have you ever honestly considered the following quote?

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers 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 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. {EW 294}

If considering it null and void is what you call considering it, then yes you have considered it.

What about this one?

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Same thing right? Null and void. It means something other than what it says.

Do you still hold the position that God doesn't really know the future, otherwise He would have never created Satan?

i dont find this accurate, richard, one regard being, that i have posted quotes that have been ignored completely. it would appear to some of us that your "side" is equally guilty of ignoring quotes that dont fit in your picture.

does God cause pestilence?





2Sa 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

who prevents and protects from pestilence?

The Lord would have us understand that these mighty ones who visit our world have borne an active part in the work which we have called our own. These heavenly beings are ministering angels, and they frequently disguise themselves in the form of human beings, and as strangers converse with those who are engaged in the work of God. ... They have been sent forth to cleanse away pestilence. They have eaten at the humble board of families, and often have they appeared as weary travelers in need of shelter for the night. {RH, November 22, 1898 par. 6}

again, not true, richard. pnattmbtc understands it to mean differently than you do but you dont accept his understanding.

lets be truthful here, ok?

I believe it means what it says, You and the other three don't. It's as simple as that.

Don't we need to consider all the quotes involved? We don't just consider one quote and ignore the others, do we?

DA 764 says:



This says that, "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."

Isn't this clear that this isn't literal fire?

As Kevin H. has explained, the difference of opinion regarding the fire being spoken of is nothing new. It goes to the very beginnings of Adventism.

Should I say that you've never considered the DA 764 quote?



How can you say this quote hasn't been considered when *on this very page* is an explanation of the quote? To claim such is "a lie," as I stated.

Sky wrote a more detailed explanation than what I wrote regarding this statement, and I pointed this out. You assertion that these statements haven't been considered is simply untrue. And you should know this, as it only involves reading posts which have been written within the last hour.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Was that fire not literal either? It says it's the same kind of fire. An example even.

EGW commenting on Jude 1:7:

They gave loose rein to their intemperate appetites, then to their corrupt passions, until they were so debased, and their sins were so abominable, that their cup of iniquity was full, and they were consumed with fire from heaven. {4aSG 121.3}

In Abraham's day the people of Sodom openly defied God and His law; and there followed the same wickedness, the same corruption, the same unbridled indulgence, that had marked the antediluvian world. The inhabitants of Sodom passed the limits of divine forbearance, and there was kindled against them the fire of God's vengeance. {PK 297.2}

...until Sodom became renowned for its pollutions. Their sins reached unto heaven, and the Lord would bear with them no longer. He destroyed them and all that was beautiful, that made it as a second Eden, for the earth was defiled under the inhabitants thereof. {TSB 126.2}

pnatt,here I find some agreement with you.I'm also with John3:17 on how and when God destroys but it seems your main criticism is aimed at Richard. Part of the problem here is that almost everyone is guilty but with so many quotes flying around it's hard to tell who's addressing what.But Richard is right in that there is a general "principle" that is used to refute his interpretation. This "principle" begs the question and needs to be established before any constructive interchange can be realized. There is also another subtle problem that seems to interfere with any progress. And that is the (dare I say) overabundance of EGW quotes used to try to establish one's correct view. As one reads it's easy to tell that one quote gets pitted against another until every one needs to be responded to.And many times these quotes "appear" to be contradictory.Should Biblical understanding on such a basic question as this need to be so complex? Since the traditional understanding of God has allowed His right to actively take human life without contradicting His character, it would seem only reasonable that any principle to the contrary must be Biblically established before tradition is to be replaced by "truth".Having typed all that, for the sake of clarity, can I ask, who believes that God NEVER actively takes human life.And do they recognize that there are stories in the Bible that would clearly suggest otherwise?