For an excellent introduction to the imagery and literary genres in the book of Revelation, I recommend Richard Bauckham's work on the subject: The Theology of the Book of Revelation.

In it, Bauckham provides compelling reasons why the imagery in Revelation should not be taken as literal, linear foretelling of future events.

Thanks to my Revelation professor Kendra Haloviak (who did a doctoral dissertation on the literature in Revelation) for pointing me to this book!

" The Character of God Controversy lays out the case that humanity is desperately wicked."

This persistent Christian doctrine, not limited to Adventism, results in what historian Sarah Vowell's recent book about the zealotry of Puritans who settled America, remarked of her Bible Belt background:

"To me, Christianity was about self-loathing. It never would have occurred to me to hate anybody else; I was too busy hating myself."

When the religious environment surrounds its adherents with more emphasis on evil and the Devil (a creation of Christianity), it inevitably results in self-hatred and navel-gazing that is so focused on sins of innumerable variety and committed every minute, that it becomes such a burden that can, and has led to neuroses. Spiritual abuse of this kind is most difficult to overcome: the multitudes of former Adventists and Christians attest to that fact.

Thanks, Elaine, for that perceptive comment!

It is interesting to observe the centrality of guilt (and feeling guilty) in so much of Adventist theology. To see it theologically laid out in written form is even more arresting:

I am thoroughly bad inside, incapable of doing good.
Despite my despicable nature, Jesus died for me.
When God looks at me, God doesn't see the dispicable me.
God sees Jesus' goodness covering me.
In God's eyes I am all good with the goodness of Jesus by virtue of my acceptance of Jesus' death on my behalf.
(I recently heard a certain Desmond Ford say somthing very similar in Loma Linda)

That view seems to be a reaction against an earlier Adventist way of thinking that said something like this:

Jesus was perfect and set the standard for what humanity must attain.
When the character of Christ is perfectly replicated in his followers, Christ will return. Christ has not yet returned because his followers have not yet attained Christ-like characters in word, thought and deed. We must stand on our own merits before Almighty God with nothing covering us.
(I have read this view in Adventist writings, but seldom if ever actually heard someone talk like this)

One will read the Bible very differently depending on which of those viewpoints one brings to the text of Scripture.

Jared,

Of the many questions that this forum has addressed in the past several months, homosexuality, ordination of women and now the question of whether God arbitrarily kills the wicked or whether they reap the natural consequences of separation from the Life-Giver, none will not be resolved until we deal with the issue of how to approach and interpret Scripture.

How readest thou still remains the basic question. Until we as a church or as individuals deal with the question of inspiration and the nature of the Bible we will remain divided on most issues. Is the Bible to be taken literally? Is the Bible a univocal document? Were the writers influenced by the surrounding cultures and the mores of the time? Did the prophets grow in their understandings? Do we need to take the literary genre of the writings into consideration?

Donna, for the church to subject the Bible to the questions you mention, could prove disastrous to the entire body of doctrine that is currently espoused.

One only needs to read Goldstein's latest rant on Daniel 2 in the Review online, to see that the entire house of cards that has been built on such prophetic fulfillments would shake the very foundations of the Adventist church. Why would it risk such a catastophe?

Actually, Elaine, not the entire body of doctrine. I think we would still remain within the Christian fellowship, but perhaps those areas that are not well founded would have to go.

I still say we were given a prophet so that we could see up close just how the prophetic gift works.

Donna, I was referring to the doctrines of Adventism that are unique and not held by the majority of Christian communities. Perhaps they were intended to set it apart, but ecumenism is not a bad word and the reluctance of Adventism to embrace their fellow Christians is still felt in many areas, even in this country, although not so often on the coasts.

That we were "given" a prophet is most subjective. There have been no prophets that were not acclaimed or denounced by their own community. Much like a would-be politican who can "declare" himself, but unless there is sufficient affirmation by the community, it does not happen. EGW would never have been called a
"prophet" without her fellow-Christians giving her that appellation--which has extended past the due date, IMO. Just as Isaiah or Jeremiah were prophets for their times, their message is often limited by time.

I have read discussions where some people have submitted the idea that God never kills but I don't know the names of any particular Adventist pastors or leaders or scholars who hold to that view. Maybe it is my own lack of knowledge but I would be interested in knowing who this book is really addressing.

The Character of God is a big issue in A. Graham Maxwell's theology but I have never heard him or read that he says God never kills. Does this book express who believes the God never kills concept. As you only have to produce one instance to prove the position false I just don't think there is sufficient acceptance of this view in Adventism. I think it is a method used to try and discount the more Moral Influence views that are held by many Adventists. Such as Maxwell's "larger view". But those are not based upon God never kills. They are based upon the idea that God did not kill His Son (God does not kill God) so that the death paid the penalty for humans sins.

There are many examples where in life it is not unjust to kill, to assume that such is not the case for God is not too credible in my opinion.

RC,

That's an interesting question. I have not heard too many Adventists say that God doesn't kill either. In fact I can't think of *any* right off the top of my head.

A little while ago when we were discussing Des Ford's view of atonement compared with the view articulated by the Good News Tour people, there were differences there, of course, but I think that both Ford and most (if not all) the GNT folks are of the opnion that God has killed in the past and that the final judgment entails some form of killing as well.

I'm hesitant to speak for them, but that was my understanding anyhow.

Incidentally, we're in the process of posting an interview with Character of God Controversy coauther Dr. Chris Lewis. That should be up soon, and it provides some insights into the story behind the story.

Here's a sneak peek from Dr. Lewis:

I have a number of friends who subscribe to the “God-doesn’t-kill theory” and have spent many hours dialoguing with them. As I mentioned above, in the course of this dialogue, I began to wonder if this was new light. The proponents of this theory genuinely want God to look good. They believe that their theory paints God in an accurate light. Their analogies sound logical. However, when I compared the ideas involved in this system of belief with the Bible, I found that it did not stand close scrutiny. It contradicts Scripture.

Donna, I agree that our understanding of inspiration is at the heart of many of our disagreements here and in the church. That's probably the hottest hot potato around, and I don't think it will ever get discussed at a denominational level.

My conversation with Dr. Chris Lewis about The Character of God Controversy is up now. It provides some insights into the content of the book and the process of its being written.

Read how the book was inspired right here.

Quote Wohlberg and Lewis (from the above review):

Wohlberg and Lewis describe justice as “How [God] relates to the guilty” (pg. 37). They go on to note throughout the book that justice demands punishment for sin.

Quote EGW:

In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. {DA 761.4}

I wonder what the Wohlberg and Lewis definition of sin is?

BH,

The DA 761 quote is really astounding, isn't it? If you leave out the words "urged Satan" then I think you'd get a lot of "Amen!"s from almost any Adventist and probably most Christian congregations. But when read closely it really stands our understanding of sin and the requirement for punishment on its head!!!

And yes, I know there is an alternate way of reading even that paragraph, e.g. that Satan was demanding that if he couldn't be brought back than neither could anyone else.

But it should certainly give us pause that the core premise used by Wohlberg and Lewis is also used by the Adversary to attack God's truth and justice. For me it shows that it is not God who demands this punishment, that demand comes from an entirely different source. I want to be clear that I'm not saying Steve or Chris or anyone else who believes the same way are "satanic" or anything like that. But the source of that argument should make us very suspicious of it as a basis for our theology, understanding of scripture or most importantly, our relationship with God.

Mark

This book says it purpose is to combat those who say God never kills. (See interview here.) This was a new concept to me, that God NEVER kills, so I did a little search and found a book Light through the Darkness that claims just that; God never kills. Now, I found something interesting. Is there more than one "Marvin Moore"? I find that "Marvin Moore" praises both books. Here is "Marvin Moore" praising The Character of God Controversy where God kills. He says:

In their exploration of God’s love, mercy, and justice, Steve Wohlberg and Chris Lewis provide solid biblical evidence that God’s wrath is more than a passive abandonment of sinners to their fate—though that is included. God’s active wrath in dealing with sin and sinners is not a contradiction of divine love. The biblical evidence reveals that God’s wrath is a manifestation of His love. This book makes a significant contribution to the current debate over God’s character.

The other book, "Marvin Moore" praises where God does not kill is Light through the Darkness. He says:

"You have the unique ability to write about theological issues clearly, simply, and in a way that makes it sound interesting. Your theological writing does not plod—a feat that few writers are able to achieve… You have good ideas and you write with a very clear style…You have the unusual ability to put complex abstract ideas into simple language that the average person can understand, and I can’t tell you how hard we look for people who can do that."

I guess he likes them both.

Not!

"Marvin Moore" claim that God is not arbitrary, vengeful, but is he severe? "Marvin Moore" does say God is strict. You can read what this "Marvin Moore" thinks about God wrath and if he kills in JATS here

BH

You expose an interesting dilemma: Can one recommend a book that doesn't necessarily agree with a central theme of your own thinking?

A must greater dilemma is the death of the first issue of David and Bathesheba--is that a consent signal that abortion is indicated in pregnancies out of wedlock?

Only academic questions you understand. Tom

You should note that Moore praise the first book on its CONTENT. On the second, it was the writing style. A great difference. A reviewer does not necessarily agree with the content, but can review it on its style, clarity, and ability to state the thesis.

Yes Elaine - I did notice the difference in the reviews. I wonder is the author of the second website knows what Moore really thinks!

BTW - I found the other book by reading the blog of Greg Boyd. He blog on this book is found HERE. The book "Light through the Darkness" is an updated version of the older book, "Shedding light on the dark side of God", copyright 2008. I read his blog last week on the subject just before the Spectrum review was posted. The an on-line copy of the older version of the book has a link on Boyd's blog and can be read HERE.

BTW#2 Greg Boyd is the author of the book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church. A book that came out of a sermon series titled The Cross and the Sword. Two sermons of revelance to other topics here on Spectrum lately can be heard here: Abortion: A Kingdom of God Approach and Is the Church the Guardian of Social Morality?.

Any one want to do a book review on The Myth of a Christian Nation?

i read,i hear,i listen,i see,i look,i behold,,i wacth,
scholars,lawers,ignorants,university professor,doctors in
theology talking about god or writing about god but few of them know god or know god's character,i become very sad because people say themselves intelligent ones saying around
god kills,if i call the wife of one them prostitute he will
want my self to die,or he will go to the tribunal to process
me,then these people what call themselves christians teaching
around who god is a murderer,if some think who he will be without consequences when calling god murderer,it should be
better changing his mind,because every one will give answers
about his words,maily when are lies about god,the problems about these people are;they are murderers and want to become god like them murderers too.to have diploma or certificate
to teach around who god kills,who god is a murderer,it is
madness,worse they call their father murderer,but jesus calls
the demon murderer since the beginning,jesus said;the thief come not,but for to steal,and to destroy;i am come that they
might have life it more abundantly.the satan has more people
slander god's name around the world than had at heaven when
started his fight against god,worse these people say about
themselves,we serve god,what do god they serve;i do not know you jared,but if some one says ; you are a thief,first i should seek for proves and after a would do the judgement,come on we are in 2008 the stone age has gone.every one will be jugde for each word who get out of his mouth.me or you choose for the life or for the death.if i have chosen the death then,god is not guilt but myself,i have a virus which i have taken of adam god has the cure for it if i do not take the medicine which god has given me i will die,i do not take the medicine then god says ,i will kill you,why would god kill me;i will die if i do not take the medicine,therefore controversy is the humans
mind and not god's character.
come now and let us reason togheter say the lord.
laercio

Laercio,

I'm sorry - I didn't fully understand what you intended to say, but I did hear echoes of the Good News Tour in some of your response. I would just reiterate what I think is true of the Good News Tour: I *think* that most participants in the GNT would be alright with the idea that God actually does kill, but only as an emergency measure in extreme circumstances (e.g. Flood...).

Here are a couple of questions that have been bouncing around in my head this afteroon:

If it turns out in the end that God does not in fact kill people, and never has killed people, will we have lost anything? Can God still take sin seriously without killing, or must there be killing for sin to be treated sufficiently seriously?

What difference might it make for our living here on earth if we were to take seriously the idea that God does not kill?

I am not yet espousing the idea that God does or does not kill, I'm only curious to ponder the implications and effects of either belief.

Jared

With the alleged exhaustive research, how did the authors miss and/or explain. Isa. 33:14,15 ?

It seems clear that the "giving over" is to allow the person who rejects God to received the consequences of that rejection--to reject the Life-Giver is to reject life! From Satan on down the line. I do have a problem with the vindictiveness--a problem that Graham Maxwell solved quite well. "The turning away with saddness." Tom

"It is a law both of the intellectual and the spiritual nature that by beholding we become changed. The mind gradually adapts itself to the subjects upon which it is allowed to dwell." GC 555.1

If we behold a God that will use force, that will kill, will destroy, do we not adapt to the same mentality?

BH

We have the Inquisition to as exhibit one. That is if we only dewell on a God of Fire and not a God of Grace. Death is a sure thing without Grace. I think our discussion should turn to "Why doesn't God end this "bloody mess, we are in?" Certainly there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate God's forbearance, His compassion, and His Grace. "The idea that God is waiting for a final group to finally shape up and stand up doesn't cut it."

I don't think we will run out of questions any time soon. Tom

BH, the evidence for your position that our belief about God affects our mentality, has been overwhelmingly proved by history.

The "Chosen People" were convinced that God both killed and ordered killing, and their scripture describes, often in gory details, their acting on that supposition.

The history of Christianity proves that again, as the persecution they inflicted on "heretics" was actually their attempts to "save" the person from Hell, as quoted in their justifications.

This proves a theory that much of Christian doctrine has been largely based on the OT account of God has written by the Hebrews. The Catholics, Calvinists, Puritans, and yes, even Adventists, have based most of the doctrines, and practice on the OT, largely ignoring (until Luther) the meaning of Grace as revealed in the New. Why has that been the prevailing ideology in so much of the history of the church, including Adventism? If one eliminated any doctrinal positions emanating from the OT, and used it for historical purposes, but relied on the NT, which is the Christian manifesto, how might we be in our lives and practice today?

Tom,

Perhaps I missed (again) exactly where your comments are headed. Isaiah 33:14 says
The sinners in Zion are terrified;
trembling grips the godless:
"Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire?
Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

That would probably be in line with the authors' main premise that God does kill people, and is perfectly justified in doing so. Am I missing something though?

As for their research, as I mentioned in the review above, the book is comprehensive. It cannot be exhaustive, covering every passage in Scripture that might be connected to the authors' thesis, but they certainly do a good job of covering all their bases. They deal with the big passages of Scripture related to the topic.

As for the "giving over" idea, the authors concede that in some cases, God clearly does give people over to the consequences of their choices (suggesting that God takes choices very seriously). But Wohlberg and Lewis would go further and argue that while sometimes people are given over to the results of their own choices, in other instances, God actively punishes wickedness with acts of divine violence (though they might not use those precise words).

Jared

I guess, I miss read: The bit about "thinking in the round".

I thought the text was quite straigth forward.

I beieve Scripture is clear that God is Love. God is Just. So
as such to protect both love and justice He does kill.

The passages in Malachi 3 are clear.

I think we are congruent but I am abit confused at the
pathway to a final end point of a loving Father who has and will destroy by fire evil and all who cling to it. Tom

I still need to acquire a copy of the book in question. But it is sounding like the authors may be painting with too broad a brush. I think there are really two issues here. One is "Did God actually ever kill anyone in the circumstances where he is described as doing so in the Old Testament?" The other is "Does God kill the unrepentant sinners at the end of the Great Controversy?"

For the first question "Has God ever killed, ever taken a life?" one can probably find reasons to believe that not all of the killings ascribed to God in the OT were in fact done by him or even according to his plan. The mindset of the people involved, the writer and the audience simply allowed for no other explanation and so it may well have been recorded "God slew Saul" when in fact God did nothing of the sort. BUT, it is hard to apply that as a universal principle to ALL such stories without starting to stretch the credulity of the bible. Nor do I think it is necessary. I think we can ALL agree that God ALWAYS acts from love. Period. So if God did ever take a life then it would have been because it was in fact the LOVING thing to do. Some find that impossible to reconcile. I don't. I can see that it might well be the loving thing to do to end a life to prevent much greater suffering or the extinguishing of freedom for a people or the world. I believe that God acts to maximize freedom and love. And I can see how that might include taking a life - not out of revenge, or punishment or wrath, but simply because it was the "right thing to do."

The other question however is somewhat different. Because at the end of the Great Controversy, all minds are made up, those who can be healed have been healed. There is no need for "emergency measures" to rescue someone or to allow for people to "choose again". So in the death of the wicked I have to ask "Why would God NEED to kill anyone?" I think we can agree at least in this forum that the soul is not immortal, that people separated from their Maker will not just live on and on. So if God grants them their wish to have nothing more to do with them, and they will die because of that, then WHY would God need to go out and actively kill them? What would be accomplished by such an act?

Mark

" So if God grants them their wish to have nothing more to do with them, and they will die because of that, then WHY would God need to go out and actively kill them? What would be accomplished by such an act?"

Those are the questions that have not been answered. Why would God need to resurrect people
who died thousands of years ago, only to kill them again? If they are not being given a second chance to realize what God is like (their earlier experiences may have been very distorted, if there were any), why would a loving God do such a terrible deed?

Or, should we not read Revelations too literally and simply leave the "right" interpretation until God has revealed it to us.

Tom,

If you read the review I offer above, you might recall my taking issue with the idea that justice means punishment of the guilty. Justice, throughout Scripture, means defense of the defenseless, help for the helpless, and protection for those who have none. For that reason, Scripture talks frequently about the need to provide justice for the widows and orphans - those who have no advocates, and not witholding justice.

Justice and mercy, in that sense are not opposed. Nor are justice and love. If love is the tree, justice is a branch.

Mark,

If one were to push you a little on the idea that God is love (period) and therefore only kills out of love, one might respond that people generally don't think of killing as being a loving thing to do to one's own child. The kind of circular reasoning that says God is love, therefore anything God does is loving (whether we would consider it loving under other circumstances or not) does not really help make the case for a loving God.

It also seems inaccurate to say that the instances of God killing in Scripture are "mercy killings" to stop suffering or to ensure freedom.

Scripture quite explicitly reveals that God commands killing as punishment and if we're going to deal honestly with Scripture, we're going to have to deal honestly with passages where killing is punishment.

What did Cain do to be punished by God? There is no record of his being required to bring an animal sacrifice, and yet, God punished him for that by refusing it.

Is it possible that the innocent babies condemned at Sodom deserved death?

What crimes worthy of killing did all the babies and small children commit to be killed in the flood?

What about all the innocent children killed by the Israelites, ordered by God?

What did all the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram have done to deserve death?

What did David and Bathsheba's child do to deserve dying?

These are only a few of the innocent children slain by God.

What did all the firstborn of Egypt do to deserve killing by God? "God struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt; the first-born of Pharaoh, the first-born of the prisoner, and all the firstborn cattle?

God’s Wrath

The History Channel has a series entitled: “The Wrath of God”. The series rehearses the great storms, fires, and calamities of history, allegedly the handiwork of God! The implication is that God is capricious, vengeful, and vindictive. Such implications are of historic importance. The pagan Romans accused Rome as having provoked Janus, Mercury, and Saturn because of Rome’s toleration of the early Christians. Certainly, early man, without divine Revelation, could do no better than assign human traits to their “gods”. The problem is that most, if not all, of the contemporary Elmer Gantry’s on Cable assign the same anthropomorphism to the Trinity. Every calamity is the “fault” of some non-conforming group or individual—the unpopular sinners of the day. Of course, this is not new to the American religious scene. Three generations of Mather’s Richard, Increase, and Cotton all claimed that Indian attacks, forest fires, floods, hurricanes, and the pox were all the result of the increasing sinfulness of the colonials, resulting in the Salem Witch Hunts.

Obviously, a call to repentance is part and parcel of the Gospel mission. But God through Paul admonishes us that vengeance is His, He will repay. America is a democracy not a theocracy. There is no call to attempt to do God’s work for Him. God loves the sinner and hates the sin. Too frequently the sinner is condemned, ostracized, and pilloried by sinners no better than their targets, all in the name of the Lord. Recall the parable of the wheat and tares: let the tares remain until the harvest lest one destroy some of the wheat. God’s wrath is theomorphic and beyond our comprehension. In the mean time when calamity falls let us let us say as did Jesus, “An enemy hath done this!”
Tom

Mark
You Brits should run the SDA church. I wish you and Victor and others over there would contribute more. I thought this comment of yours was very insightful:

"I think we can agree at least in this forum that the soul is not immortal, that people separated from their Maker will not just live on and on. So if God grants them their wish to have nothing more to do with them, and they will die because of that, then WHY would God need to go out and actively kill them? What would be accomplished by such an act?"

Elaine
I taught religion in Norway (lutheran state church, but religion in school is de facto non-confessional), and used to challenge my students to visualize what the destruction of Jericho (as imagined in Joshua), with Israelite fighters hacking to death panicked, unarmed citizens fleeing the invaders. And the purpose? To steal their gold and silver and valuables, which were to be used for the greater glory of God.

Ironically, the event never took place, according to archeological excavations at Jericho. What we are looking at in the Bible are accounts of killing and mayhem attributed to God, to make him appear powerful to people who defined greatness in terms of total domination. But those who regard the Bible as inerrant, are not at liberty to concede that point. Conservative hermenutics consists in squaring circles--or should I say, put lipstick on pigs.

I taught religion in Norway (lutheran state church, but religion in school is de facto non-confessional), and used to challenge my students to visualize what the destruction of Jericho (as imagined in Joshua), with Israelite fighters hacking to death panicked, unarmed citizens fleeing the invaders. And the purpose? To steal their gold and silver and valuables, which were to be used for the greater glory of God.

Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 24 October 2008 at 1:25
The Israelites were instructed to not take anythig from Jericho.
Hence the whole story of Achan’s Sin and Punishment remember?
Everyting that could not be burned was smelted down and purified, the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron.

And the purpose was not that they needed a little gold. Jericho was one of the most fortified cities in Caanan and also the most corrupt. When it fell it caused many other cities to surrender without a fight.

Truth is, according to archaeological evidence: the conquest of Jericho didn't happen. No evidence can be found anytime near the purported Israelite invasion. No archaeological data can support the idea that a walled town even existed at Jericho during this whole period.

If Joshua conquered everything in sight, scholars ask, then why does the next biblical book, Judges, present a picture so contradictory to this claim. The Canaanaites, supposedly annihilated or exiled by the Israelite invasion in Joshua's time, are everywhere in evidence. Indeed, the very first sentence of Judges says: "After the death of Joshua, the Israelites inquired of the Lord, 'Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites to fight against them?'" (Judg. 1:1).

In fact, during the whole period when Israel might conceivably have emerged (that is, between 1300 and 1000 BC), there is in fact no evidence of ANY sizable influx of people into the region, save for that of the coast-dwelling Philistines. This is the reason that most modern scholars reject the Bible's own picture of a great exchange of populations--more than a million Israelites entering Canaan and displacing the native population; that in actuality, the Israelites are in every sense Canaanites themselves, massing just outside the walled cities--peasants, brigands, and 'APIRU.' There was no murderous invasion of conquerors and no massive influx of foreigners and exchange of populations.

Similar to the heroic tales told by the poets and writers of other nations, the Israelites painted a brilliant tableaux of their victorious
triumphs--from their own imagination.

Scholars and archaeologists at one time also said that Babylon didn't exsist, and that Belshazzar was a mythical figure, created from the fertile imagination of the Biblical writers. Subsequent research and excavation overturned these assumptions. And, there are more examples where archaeological discoveries, over time, have come down on the side of the Biblical narratives, and against former scholarly assumptions that were previously viewed as the most "sacred" highest authority...a view that is still obviously held by some here.

Maybe time ought to be given time before such absolute pronouncements are made against the historical veracity of the Bible. Then again, the bias of some here that casts the Bible as merely a humanly devised set of myths and fables makes such openess highly unlikely.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank
It all depends on which book we hold inerrant.

You live in a state where a young man, some years back, found a set of golden plates in a hill, which when translated, turned out to be an account of walled cities with vast populations lining the Great Lakes. Unfortunately for Mormons, not so much as a Nephite scullery has been found around Buffalo or anywhere else up there. And yet the Book of Mormon says so, so it must have happened, right? We might want to suspend disbelief to give archaelogists better time to sift upstate New York through their sieves, or what do you say?

Well, I know what you'd say. You're an intelligent person with no faith at stake in Mormon pseudo-history, and you would, like me, roll your eyes and talk about special pleading.

Unfortunately, much of the Bible's history rests on pure faith. The Unified Monarchy does not have any leg up on Mormon history or the story of King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table. But when it's our sacred book at stake, we are not free to admit that.

Not convincing agruement Aage,
When has the book of mormon ever been proven right?

When has the bible not?
If it ever had been people such as your self and Elaine would dance in the street no doubt.
In the case of the bible, from Babylon to the Hittites the bible has proven true. On some questions yet to be verified the worst the bible can do is that it hasnt been proven YET.

As far as things depending on which book we hold inerrant.
That is a fallacy.
One doesnt need to hold the bible inerrant to hold that it hasnt been proved wrong yet.

Michael
Neither Elaine nor I have a grudge against the Bible. What we're championing are facts over fiction. We're trying to call it the way it is. I'm saying "trying." I don't know Elaine but none of us has suggested that we speak with divine authority. We belong to a tribe of people who are willing to change our mind if the facts so indicate.

One reason I, at least, have ended up staying around on this blog, is that these questions genuinely interest me. I have no axe to grind, no First Church of the Unbeliever to baptize you into. I just enjoy being around people whose interests in life go beyond beer brands and car makes. I take no offense at faith. Once I was where you're now. But I like us to be honest when it comes to facts, that which can be falsified, such as the archeological record.

It's possible to argue that Jericho was destroyed in the manner told in Joshua, but not to do so on basis of archeology.

Whether Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah, is entirely a matter of faith. It can neither be proven nor falsified. The destruction of the city we know as Jericho is a different matter.

"When has the book of mormon ever been proven right?"

Well, it has for some 13 million Mormons, and they are a recent religious belief; given several millennia, there numbers may equal some of the other great world religions considering their growth rate.

Has Islam proved right? Has Judaism proved right? It all depends on who is asked, doesn't it?

And they all have "proofs" equal to Christianity.

Elaine,

Quoting a statistic of how many Mormans find the book true is a nice way of circumventing Michael's point which is totally valid..."When has the Book of Morman ever proved to be true?" And he means FACTUALLY TRUE. (Forgive me for speaking for you, Michael.) You have a nice way to avoid the facts when the argument doesn't suit your conclusions...your bias shouts through as claearly as any literalist.

No archaeologist worth their salt has ever come up with a single artifact that corroborates any "historical" accounts of the ancient Americas in the Book of Morman. But many reputable archaeologists have discovered evidence that reveals the accuracy of the historical details of the Bible in both testaments.

In fact, much of what previous scholarship viewed as fabricated in the biblical narratives has been overturned by subsequent archaeological finds. A good example would be the vindication of the precise historicity of Luke's accounts, something that previous scholarship totally discounted.

Instead of continuing to trumpet how the biblical story finds no basis in history because of the absence of evidence of particular personages or events, it would be more intellectually honest to say that the evidence has yet to be found. That would be consistent with the pattern that has developed over time between the Bible and archaeological research.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank
Mormons would agree with your statement "it would be more intellectually honest to say that the evidence has yet to be found." God tells them that the Book of Mormon's account is true. He attests to it by imparting a burning sensation is their bosom--the much sought-after "testimony" of Moroni ch. 13, which energizes Mormon missionaries around the world.

The difference between the Bible and the book of Mormon is that two nations, one called "Israel" and one called "Judea" actually existed, and that they left archeological traces behnd, whereas a record of the existence of the Lamanites and the Nephites can only be found in the Book of Mormon.

However, when it comes to Biblical history PRIOR to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the 8th century BC, there is no difference between the Biblical stories and the stories in the Book of Mormon. The Patriarchs, the conquest of Kanaan by an army of Israelite slaves, the United Monarchy, these are no more based upon verifiable fact than the story of Jesus' post-ressurection appearances in America and the battle of Hill Cumorah.

It's faith-based history. We accept such history when it is based upon our sacred scriptures but we just as firmly reject it when it's rooted in the scriptures of other faith traditions.

It would be presumptive to declare that all religions founded or originating in The United States are works centered rather than Christ centered. Yet they certainly dominate the landscape.

I will not attempt to place them in any chronological order or philosophic linkage but certainly they must include:

Scientology.
Christian Science
Latter Day Saints
Penacostalism
Dispensationalism--with a nod to Darby
Seventh-day Adventism
Jehovah Witness

Since Mormonism has been singled out. One must read the "Pearl of Great Price" to get Joseph Smith's version of the founding. Then a quick review of Google sites on the real history of the movement.

Rather than the reformational emphasis upon an Alien Righteousness of another (Jesus Christ) the above groups stress "Proper Righteousness"--a self developed ethic and ethos with an occasional nod to a divine inner-dwelling or a natural latent power.

At best the Gospel holds historic significance not the present reality of assurance. Of the above grouping, Seventh-day Adventism clings most closely to Pauline thinking but continues to revert to the priority of self spirituality or advancement toward personal perfection which ulitmately become the final generation that totally and completely vindicates God--the final act in the "Drama of the Ages". Tom

PLease speak Frank,
You do it so much better than I.

Tom
You're onto something there. Mormonism is the ultimate example of self-realization as salvation. Joseph Smith and Dale Carnegie belong to an American tradition that says the sky is the limit. Smith went as far as to propose to his followers that once you entered onto the path of "eternal progression" you were on your way to become a deity with creative power. As one of the later prophets late put it: "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man shall one day become."

To get at the core of Mormon doctrine, you have to read Doctrine and Covenants (the Testimonies of the LDS church) and, as you say, Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Mormon only supplies the framing narrative of Mormonism, but not its doctrines (which is why they hide them and promote the Book of Mormon.)

And when you think of EGW, one of her first visions was of people pulling their own weight up the mountain roads of post-disappointment apocalypticism to salvation.

Today the TV evangelists--the Gambinos of religion--promote their spiritual merchandise and their pyramid schemes and their Godfather stature as ways to hustle your way into the Kingdom of God while enjoying the good things of this life. It's very American. Optimism is a good thing but it can get out of hand.

Thanks Aage,

Have you visited the Mormon visitors Center in Salt Lake City?

As you climb the stairs to the second level, the wall is covered with a mural that depicts the staircase to heaven in which eventually each person who reaches the top will be another Jesus Christ. The nural was done by Mr. Anderson who painted the picture of Christ knocking on the side of the U.N. Building. Tom

Tom
I've seen the Tabernacle and the Temple from the outside only. I didn't take the tour. And yes, Anderson served both the Mormon and SDA church as illustrator in chief, and both claim his as theirs--him and his tall, blond mid-western Jesus.

Most religion claim "factual evidence" for their faith. This is they manner in which all religion flourishes: Get sufficient believers, and followers and over centuries, even millennia, there will be a huge number, all believing in the stories they've been told.

Faith doesn't require factual evidence. If that were so, it would be like mathematics: 2+2=4. Faith requires, even demands that certain dogma be maintained. No evidence has ever been given for such belief as a Virgin Birth; resurrection; walking on water, and scores of other beliefs that are held by most Christians. To ask or expect proof, is to be worse than a doubter--a heretic.

There are religions (Jamaica) where toddlers smoke marijuana as a sacrament ("the weed of wisdom, angle's food, the tree of life") which, when smoked, is a burning "sacrifice to Jesus.
It is the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church--a Christian sect. There is no end of beliefs that can be called "Christian" and of those with other names, they are legion.

jared my friend;whom has said you,god has sent the flood?
another question;whom has killed more people;god or evil?
then,god kills,god punishs,god send fire of the heaven,god
send water of the heaven,i stay thinking about; what does satan do to deserve eternal punishiment?whether god kills,hurt
punish and every thing else,will i blame satan of what?
we are god's witness and not witness against god.
please jared replys my question above,i should like to see
answers of yours.thanks
laercio

Laercio,

I'm sorry, again I had a little difficulty in understanding what you meant to ask. Are you asking me whether I think God sent the flood or if I think that God kills people?

Try asking your question again, and I'll give you the best answer that I can.

jared my friend,reply both questions.
i am hoping for answers of yours.
thanks
laercio

where is your answers jared?
i am wating for;
laercio

Sharon
In the early 1980's the pastor of the SDA church where we had membership held a study using the book "Behold Your God" by F. T. Wright, published 1979 by Destiny Press of Queensland, Australia. The book was hard to acquire even that soon after printing.
The book, which relies quite heavily on quotes from Ellen White, supports the view that "to kill" is contrary to the character of God.
Sadly, that study effectively split the small local church between those who read the book and those who were appalled that such a concept could be entertained. More than twenty years beyond this study, I find myself unsure just where I can confidently stand on this issue. The supportive use of so many EGW quotations tipped the balance toward a more skeptical view of the study when I returned to the book a year or so ago.
I sometimes wonder if only the academic community can adequately wrestle with such questions--and how greatly should these questions and speculative answers influence our faith.

It is interesting to have this discussion, does God kill? The very idea of Him killing seems at odds with the 10 commandments which we like to say are a transcript of His character. "Thou shalt not kill" except when you are God.

What if we refer to another of the commands: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" except when you're God. So, does God occassionally lie? Would we be comfortable with Him lying from time to time? Apparently the serpent in the garden, when speaking to Eve, suggested that indeed, God does lie.

Wow, I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for Steve Wohlberg in reading this review. I would suggest he attend a Good News Tour event sometime to see what they are really all about. I have enjoyed them both on video and in person and have been truly blessed in being exposed to such a diverse group of speakers and teachers. My view of the Father has been greatly enhanced and not at all diminished by being exposed to the GNT.

I was wondering if anyone would mention "Behold Your God," which was the seed for "Light Through Darkness." Behold Your God goes into much more detail, and considers a lot more issues, than "Light Through Darkness" (actually, I've not read "Light Through Darkness," but I'm assuming it's essentially the same as "Light on the Dark Side of God" written by the same author). This isn't to say anything against "Light on the Dark Side of God," which I think does a good job on the issues it takes up, especially explaining what the "Wrath of God" means in Scripture.

There sure is a lot of misinformation on this topic.

Tom E

I used to be fearful of asking questions about my church's doctrine that did not make sense. Once that fear vanished, I found fellow church members striving more at convincing me of certain doctrines and reelin me back to safety then encouraging me to think for myself. A. Graham Maxwell did what no other SDA I knew has ever done - thought outside the black-and-white-categorical-concretist box of this church I love dearly. But let's face it, we have judged to the point of pushing many away if they did not "think as we think" and branded "free thinking" as a slippery slope.

I no longer feel like a heretic. In fact, the truth that our church was borne from Diversity's Womb has been just recently resurrected in my own mind. This fact enlivens my passion for sharing with anyone who will listen that God does not kill - sin does.

I'd like to see a day when a SDA can say, "I'm not even sure if God exists" or "I don't like God" and still find room within the church "walls" to process all there is to process without fear of retaliation.

The way I see it, Steve and Chris are writing a book that stems from a distinct and nagging fear that somehow its "wrong" or "bad" to think with a mind that grates against their own standard. It is fear that prevents us from reaching out and connecting instead of chastising.

I am not alone. I can speak on behalf of hundreds if not thousands of SDAs who believe that God's compassion is not at odds with His justice. I can speak on behalf of countless SDAs who believe that sin kills - not God. I can speak on behalf of those who believe that thinking for oneself is the only way to salvation for by it we walk side-by-side with our Maker who blessed us with a brain to use for dissecting, analyzing and scrutinzing every shred of evidence that crosses our path and NOT to eat dried out left-overs from dogma's table.

As far as freedom is concerned - I respect Steve and Chris' will and right to author this book, I have no issue with their personal expression. God created ALL of us to experience creative expression. What I do take issue with is a sort of compact "us vs them" "right vs wrong" stance that seems to pervade the volume.I cannot help but read between the lines and though some might chalk that up to being oversenstive - it may very well be. I don't know yet.

Once again, the SDA church is about diversity. Its roots are still embedded in the powerful idea of indepedant thought. WE are not a one-size-fits all church, nor are we all on the same page concerning the 28 fundies. In fact, its sad to me that we even have them. Why must a holy priesthood compose its beliefs and bind them in a book if that priesthood's living by example is so apparent?

I encourage everyone to dig, search and question your pastor, elder, deacon, SS teacher, friend, teacher...whoever, on all you can muster. We must get back to finding truth for ourselves. Banish fear. Promote peace in all you do...

Peace All Ways,

Stacie Belmonte
--
www.Live2KnowHim.org

Thank you, Stacie, for sharing your personal journey of faith. Having the freedom to ask questions, even difficult ones - is a treasured freedom. Merely accepting information because an authority figure says it is a dangerous route to take.

Currently the big push by the Adventist Biblical Research Institute is to promote this publication as the source of definitive answers. The Institute is also warning pastors about the danger of listening to alternative viewpoints.

We, as a church, deserve much better. Especially from an organization that sees itself as scholarly.

Donna

Scholarly, too often is associated with sceptics and questioning rather than searching for Truth.

The early "fathers" of the Church set a baseline that still holds fast today. The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

One should use this statement as the foundation of one's study.

The problem we have is that we try and try to come up with something new, novel, or spectacular. As if there is salvation in time, place, ritual, diet, or denominational or political affiliation.

In the meantime, let us treat each other as ones who have fallen among thieves. We all need healing--before we can become healers. A Gospel Worker must first have the Gospel--unfortunately it is usually only an agenda of proselytizing--thus the warning to pastors--keep the blinders on!!!

One doesn't have to go looking for Jesus, He is looking for you--He invites Come--there are any number who would be glad to introduce you: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul. We don't need to get hung up on some bishop trying to rewrite history. Tom

The Apostle's Creed was formulated how many centuries ago? Why should we be content to adopt that creed when most of the other church doctrines are not only as ancient but static. How many positions taken by the church fathers do we accept? On what basis other than age? Actually, the acceptance of Sunday observance predates this creed, but Adventists thoroughly reject it. How do they choose which are timeless and which are irrelevant?

If we allow ourselves no room to investigate and question what the early fathers have said so long ago, we are admitting that there is nothing new, nothing more that is there to learn.

Surely not, as there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of new books written each and every year on Christianity, its doctrines, practices, and structure. Once we limit ourselves to having all the "truth" (particularly as Adventists have claimed for all of nearly 200 years--a minor blip of time) then we have frozen our minds and begun to idolatrize a concept we actually invented.

Curious and questioning minds cannot, and will not accept such dogma. Each person must go on his own spiritual journey; no one can do that for her. God gave us our minds and by refusing to use them we are not only dishonoring him but have become worshipers of idols of the gurus who claim to have found all the answers. In such an
atmosphere, thinking persons make a quick exit.

Elaine:

Yes there is advancing understanding, but it can not drift away from the Verities. We are made of the same substance and are under the same condemnation and dependant upon the same
Redemptive Love and Power of Jesus Christ. There is nothing in the first Century thinking to challenge those basic verities.

So I am a Pauline convert. Tom

I was far from the target when I said AGM was the only SDA to think outside our neat little box - let me please not forget (ever, ever, ever!) my group of SDA mentors who have not only taken EGW and AGM above and beyond - they've driven me to keep searching and kept asking me the hard questions.

Two more men who have had a large impact on my paradigm shift are Dick Nies and Jack Provensha. I was not introduced to them until after listening to lectures by Graham and wow - its true, all three speakers harmonize so beautifully.

Let me add that beyond my own SDA circle there have been people who I never dreamed would inspire me -like atheist Sam Harris who wrote "Letter to a Christian Nation." If you have not read it, check it out. While I do not agree with Sam's overall ideas - I sure do sympathize with his disdain for hardcore fundamentalism that marginalizes and categorizes people into "right" and "wrong" boxes. What was a bit ironic was how he expressed somewhat the same intolerance toward Christians as he claimed they did toward non-Christians. Funny how that works.

Reading Sam was huge for me since I was told as a young Christian woman to, "Never read anything from a non SDA. That 1% lie in 99% truth could be your demise." Its not true. How can we know what we believe in unless we actually look beyond our own front door and behold a contrast? Do I not discredit the sacredness of my own worship system by discrediting my neighbor's?

We are free. We are free to think and do and God is patient enough to allow for each of us that right. Put away your timelines and charts, they are not nourishment for the relationship to be had today with our best Friend. Think twice about the idea that God will punish sin - for sin is its own punishment. It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing redemptive about punishment. Redemption is about healing the brokeness - not putting it in "time out."

Peace All Ways,

Stacie

Donna,

You said:

I did not know for sure the BRI was promoting the Wohlberg/Lewis book as a source of definitive answers. I didn't know such a book existed or ever will. I thought that this miracle came by way of that which is self-evident?

When we hear of "warning" we can smell fear a mile away. Perhaps it would quell the fear of the BRI to rememeber Gamaliel's advice? For if the COG movement is dastardly as the book purports - then it will scatter and blow away. If it is of God, there is nothing any man can do to stop it.

Personally? I sense a swelling in not just in our church's heart but in the world. Its a swelling need of God more than ever - and not the one that mainstream Christianity is using to keep people in check. This lesson that suggests our Father is an oppressive authoritarian is Satanic. What the world wants to know is can He be trusted? Are we really free? What will happen to me if I don't trust God?

Do we know that we know that we know we have the answers?

-Stacie

Stacie wrote:
--
Personally? I sense a swelling in not just in our church's heart but in the world. Its a swelling need of God more than ever - and not the one that mainstream Christianity is using to keep people in check. This lesson that suggests our Father is an oppressive authoritarian is Satanic. What the world wants to know is can He be trusted? Are we really free? What will happen to me if I don't trust God?
--

While I agree with Stacie, I can't help but think that our very church was founded upon the view she now rejects. We really can't go on pointing to Ellen White as a prophet and as the source of our so called Great Controversy views when at the heart she is teaching as Stacie said a Satanic message. While doing my book review on my blog for It's Okay not to be a Seventh-day Adventists I came upon this quote from Ellen White:

Signs of the Times 1879 -01-16.007:

“ Satan trembled as he viewed his work. He was alone, in meditation upon the past, the present, and the future. His mighty frame shook as with a tempest. An angel from Heaven was passing. Satan called him, and intreated an interview with Christ. This was granted. He then related to him that he repented of his rebellion, and wished again to enjoy the favor of God. He was willing to take the place which had been assigned him, and be under Christ's command. The Son of God wept at Satan's woe, but told him, as the mind of the Father, that this could never be. Heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. The peace of Heaven would be marred, should he be received back; for sin originated with him; the seeds of rebellion were still within him. He had no occasion for his course, and he had not only hopelessly ruined himself, but the host of angels also, who would still have been happy in Heaven had he remained steadfast. The law of God could condemn, but could not pardon.”

Look at that last line: The law of God could condemn, but could not pardon. That is penal/substitutionary theory carried into a fictional heavenly account of the fall of Satan. It is the incorporation of the idea that God is different then the law He supposedly creates as if He has made a law and it now is more important then the creator of the law. How silly would that sentence be if we took out the law from the sentence and said:
"God could condemn, but could not pardon." Yet this is the foundation of what Stacie and her friends call the Great Controversy view. Ellen White, her version of the fall, her version of what happened on the cross, that Christ died the death that the wicked would suffer through separation from God.

As long as they continue to use Ellen White as an authority they are halting between two different opinions. Never expressing one enough for it to grab peoples attention because the other opinion, the Ellen White Penal view is always there to distort. The penal view has no problem accepting the idea of penal + moral influence. But moral influence has no need for penal, moral influence sees love as reason enough to forgive, no need for the death of someone in order for God to forgive.

There is a way out but as the saying goes you can't get there from here. We have to move past Ellen White.

Ron

Hi Ron,

The beauty of the SDA church is that many of us have moved on (to grow and stretch on our own) and yet still remain. Second, the SDA church really does have room for all views - including EGW's.

I could pull up countless EGW passages that seem to conflict and some indeed do conflict with what you supplied above but here's the thing, EGW was flesh and blood just like you and me and she was growing in her understanding. God help me if I am held to what I believed in even 3 mos ago for my paradigm is constantly expanding as I believe hers was.

Let me put it another way, let's stop blaming EGW for any nonsense we propogate personally or corporately. Most of us who use her writings (out of twisted or pure motives) end up slaughtering what she actually said, not to mention what she actually meant, in the first place. So I am with you on one point, unless we can be accurate and kind, we ought to just keep our lips zipped :-)

While I use her for private study, I will not cite her in mixed circles. Unfortunately she has become a huge stumbling block.

But so was Jesus Christ.

Stacie wrote:
--
I could pull up countless EGW passages that seem to conflict and some indeed do conflict with what you supplied above but here's the thing, EGW was flesh and blood just like you and me and she was growing in her understanding.
--

Stacie I did give you the reason why you can find what you term conflicting Ellen White statements on atonement. That is because the Penal Theory has always incorporated moral influence ideas along with Jesus is the substitute paid the penalty. In reference to the EGW quote I used I am pretty sure you can not find countless EGW passages that conflict with what she wrote when you look at context of the statements. And after all that is really the only way to compare statements. I actually thought when I read what the book authors (It's Okay not to be an Adventist) wrote in a parallel statement that they were wrong. That in EGW' account God was looking deeper into Satan's mind and saw that he really did not repent. But that was not what any of the versions she wrote said.

I think when you say the SDA church has room for all views including Ellen White's you are living in a fantasy world. EGW is the primary view and if you don't agree then you are restricted in the positions in the church. I know it happened to me recently in my church.

The fact is that there are beliefs that are so conflicting that they can't live together. If the church chooses the wrong side in the issue it forces the others out. Clearly your group takes some Ellen White comments and rejects others yet the group does not seem to recognize that fact.

When I listen to the Good News tour I rarely hear mention of Ellen White but I hear her ideas in most every session. Your primary audience is Adventists, they are comfortable with those ideas because they have been indoctrinated into Ellen White for as long as they have been Adventist. It is why so many Adventists can't differentiate what is from the Bible and what is from Ellen White.

Ellen White is a huge stumbling block but to equate her with Jesus Christ who was a stumbling block to the Jews is simply wrong. Time and place and knowledge is vastly different. In the book review I am doing the authors are writing to primarily former Adventists. She said that there are about a million former Adventists, I am assuming she means in America. In most of their cases it is not Jesus Christ that is the stumbling block it is Ellen White. And they aren't even dealing with the heart of the gospel the atonement.

Stacie wrote:
--
Let me put it another way, let's stop blaming EGW for any nonsense we propogate personally or corporately. Most of us who use her writings (out of twisted or pure motives) end up slaughtering what she actually said, not to mention what she actually meant, in the first place. So I am with you on one point, unless we can be accurate and kind, we ought to just keep our lips zipped :-)
--

While I don't agree with your statement as I think people are capable of reading other peoples writing and understand what they are saying. I would have no problem with the cessation of using her all together. And that is my point selective use leads to giving the person (EGW) authority selective rejection leaves you in the position of rejecting what you otherwise say, at least on the parts you agree with, are inspired prophetic writings. So how do you have it both ways, how do you decide which to accept and which to reject. The common use of she was growing does not work because it is all based upon your assumptions about what she may have said later if she had lived.

So how do you fight the ideas of the traditional Adventists such as the authors of the Character of God Controversy. They don't have to selectively use and disuse EGW. They don't have to assume that she was growing away from any doctrine she previously wrote on. They have a fundamental belief statement that they can unreservedly accept saying the EGW is a continuing source of truth. In other words as long as you both use EGW your side will lose!

Ron

To all of you!

Very interesting discussion! At least it shows that Adventists do not have yet the best answers to all different theological problems as many in our ranks very often try to say.
Also this issue does open more questions than we have answers.
I am, sorry that I do not yet know the book of Wohlberg and Lewis but I will try to get it as soon as possible. For the moment I just try to capture the principal idea in the comments from Jared and others who have written here. I found some principal thoughts in here on the principal idea of God in his relation to sin and punishment of sin and sinners that I would like to address in my comment.

Jared,

you summed up one of the probable central issues of the book in the following words:

“The Character of God Controversy lays out the case that humanity is desperately wicked, God is infinitely holy, justice demands punishment of sin, and God will actively destroy the wicked. Wohlberg, and presumably Lewis as well, subscribes to a forensic (i.e. legal) view of atonement whereby Jesus’ death on the cross pays the penalty for sin, and Christ’s perfect sacrifice and righteousness is imputed to penitent sinners.”

In this paragraph I personally see already some fundamental problems that constitute the basic of most of the other problems that we have in our theology of sin and salvation.

The first problem is the idea “JUSTICE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT OF SIN” ! This is the basic principal in the forensic view of atonement! I would like to question this principle and ask you if this idea is real biblical and if God himself is the author of such a principle. If God really is the author of such a theological principle than this would exactly be the basic to the image of a punishing God who is forced by his own law to punish every sin without mercy.

Here I would like to make aware of the following statement that BH already posted in October 17th 2008 at 10:53

“In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. {DA 761.4}

So according to this statement we would have to conclude that the author of the principle “JUSTICE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT OF SIN” is not God but Satan!

Here are still two other statements of Ellen G. White going in the same direction:

„The condemning attitude of Satan led him to establish a theory about Justice, which is not compatible with grace” (Letter 16a, 1892)

“It had been Satan's purpose to divorce mercy from truth and justice. He sought to prove that the righteousness of God's law is an enemy to peace.” (DA 761)

So if Wohlberg and Lewis build her theology of the character of God and his concept of punishment on such a principle, and if they think that it is a right principal, I doubt that they would come to the right answers. If this principle is not a biblical one, we also would have to ask questions to the forensic view of atonement and ask, if it is the right view of atonement and if it is save that we follow Anselm of Canterbury and others in that theology?
In this concept as you (Jared) wrote: “Jesus’ death on the cross pays the penalty for sin, and Christ’s perfect sacrifice and righteousness is imputed to penitent sinners.”

Where do we have the biblical confirmation for such a view of atonement? Could somebody give me just one text, where I could find such a statement that Jesus paid the penalty for sin? If Jesus paid the penalty of sin, so please tell me which sin does it mean? Did Jesus already have to pay by his death the penalty of Adam´s and Eve´s first sin or did he have to pay the penalty of all sins of whole humanity? Let me put it in other words: Do we have to think that God would have been forced by His law to punish Adam and Eve with the second and eternal death already for only the one first sin they committed in the Garden of Eden, if Jesus would not have been ready to pay the penalty for their first sin 4000 years later at their place by the death of the cross?

I think, usually this is what forensic atonement demands us to believe! We traditionally say that the only way that God could forgive Adam and Eve and that he still could be proven as just and merciful was that Jesus would be ready to be punished by the second death at the place of Adam and Eve and all their children on this world. So in doing so He satisfied His own justice and the claim of His own law and this would have been the only way to have been able to refute the false invention of Satan “about Justice, which is not compatible with grace”!

Is this really a good biblical concept of the justification of God and His law and his justice and love?
How about the other concept that lays on the foundation of forensic atonement in the book of
Wohlberg and Lewis as you, Jared, stated it:
“Christ’s perfect sacrifice and righteousness is imputed to penitent sinners.”

Could you, Jared, or the two authors or anybody else of the readers of this blog show me in the Bible, where I could find such a statement concerning the concept of imputed righteousness? Where does the Bible say that “Christ’s perfect sacrifice and righteousness is imputed to penitent sinners.”? Please look up all the texts in the Bible, where you find the word “imputed” and help me to find just one place, where I can find that the perfect “sacrifice” and “righteousness of Christ” is imputed to penitent sinners? I do not remember having red even in Ellen White´s writings that the “perfect sacrifice” (meaning probably his death on the cross ?) and his perfect righteousness would be imputed to the penitent sinners! Or did I miss such statements in her writing?

I know that you could give me a lot of statements from Ellen G. White and also from all other Christians authors in past and present history and long before Ellen White, where they are all saying, that the perfect righteousness of Christ are imputed to the repentant sinners. Some even say that His righteousness is even imputed to all men, but they would still just have to accept it be faith so that they could be able to repent.
However you formulate it, just show me this kind of imputed righteousness in the Bible!

My last question for this time would be, if God does not punish or even kill himself as some try to say, so I would like to know then, how I would have to understand the warning in Eden when God said: “… thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

How did God really mean this warning? Did he mean that the day when Adam und Eve would transgress this simple law God in His justice would have to kill them right after the first disobedience? If we are consequent to the forensic concept of atonement God would have to be forced to kill Adam and Eve or let them die by retaking the breath of life of them right after the first sin, if Jesus would not have quickly become their intercessor and offering His life and taking the penalty for their sin upon Him at the cross 4000 years later.

Is that real a good biblical concept? Was God real forced to punish already the first sin that way in order to be able to remain and accepted to be just before the universe?

If this would have been the real the only way for God to deal with sin so I would like t ask you, why did God not warn Adam and Eve the following way? If the first sin would already have caused God to offer His Son on a shameful cross and be scourged, smitten and tortured as he was before the cross and if the first sin would already had such a consequence so why did God not tell Adam and Eve before her transgression, that if they would eat from the fruit they would cause God or His Son to die on their place in order to be able to forgive them their sin afterwards? God knew in advance that He would forgive them and that he would give them a chance to repent from sin, so way did he say that they would have to die if they sin?

If we read Ellen G. White she tells us that God right after their sin, when He maid coats of skins, and clothed them He told them that their sin would finally be the reason why the Son of God would have to die some time later far on in history. So why did God reveal that to Adam and Eve only right after sin and not before they ate of the fruit? If God knew already before the creation of the world, that only one sin on this earth would force Him to die on a cross, if He want to forgive men, so why did He not warn men by telling him that their sin would not cause only death to them but also death to God or His Son?

We do have a theology of punishment in which the word of Rom. 6:23 “the weight of sin is death” is interpreted, as if the weight of sin is not the death of the sinner, but the death to God or to His Son as the substitute for sinners.
Could it be that we do not just have a very doubtable concept of punishment but also a very doubtable und unbiblical concept of atonement and salvation and justification and righteousness of God and men?

I think that we would have to study carefully and rethink our concepts of the fall in heaven and the fall in Eden and its consequences. Remember also that God announce some very earnest consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve in the curses of Gen. 3: 14-19. So the question would have to be answered how do we have to understand those curses and consequences of the sin regarding Adam and Eve but also regarding Satan and also regarding nature? This must be the basic of a biblical theology of punishment.

So I would like to know if the book of Wohlberg and Lewis does deal with that passage and what interpretation do they give to those problems?

If I for example want to know who will finally kill Satan and His angels at the end of the time, will they just die as natural consequence of their sin or do we find the right answer in Gen. 3,15???? How do Wohlberg and Lewis answer my questions?

Jared ,

could you give my some ideas to these questions out of the book while I will try to get it myself over here in Europe?

Thanks for helping me to get a clearer understanding to all these questions also for other readers of this interesting blog!

Armin

Hi all,

Greeting from india, nice to be here.

Glad to see Stacie Belmonte here, i know you, i have
Marco's Videos, your name is mentioned there. Say hi to
Marco for me.

First, i am glad that this topic on God's Character is
being studied and bought to adventist as well as public notice. We are told that the last message of mercy to this world is a message of God's character of mercy and love.

Mercy and Love which draws all men to God. There is no fear in love, love does no harm, love heals fear and sin and restores the soul to love and be selfless again.

Secondly please pardon my english, grammar, vocabulory etc., as i'm not good in that.

Everybody or many don't seem to have a problem to believe that God loves and cares. But few among them really understand the kind of love with which God loves us. Divine, Infinite, Eternal, Unconditional. So then it's understandable when fallen humans who have been seperated from him and the heavenly environment sometimes fail to understand or interpret him rightly.

Satan has filled our world with false ideas about God, unbelievable concepts. And this is his solitary mission to distort the character of God.

We have been deeply polluted by sin which produces false ideas of God, the principles of life which God intended. For example: God says that humans are all precious regardless of their character - good or bad or average, finances - rich or poor, education - scholar or illiterate, looks - good or average, nationality - american or indian.

But when you look at how the world and sometimes christians think and behave, you see that we are unbiblical most of the time. People are valued either for their performance, position etc. Even at church, people are sometimes valued or looked as great, special, if they posess good bible knowledge, praying ability, church office, public speaking etc while God says we are precious because we are his children and that's our identity.

The reason i say these is to emphasise that it is hard for fallen man to truly explain God, except for those who have truly sought for him, to know him and his ways. To the extent you open your heart honestly to a honest God, he can show you his ways and you will be able to understand him.

So not every televagelist, scholar, religious teacher, leader,
with good reputation from men, necessarily know God in depth and for who he is. As a result, because we are carnal and not been truly open to God but studied about him with a mixture of wordly philosophies with which we grew up, we have over 1000 denominations among ourselves claiming to serve One God, Believeing in One Book, having One Faith, and guided by Only One Spirit.

Therefore, not everybody have the right understanding of God, except for those to whom God was able to reveal himself.

Right here in this blog, since we have different opinions conflicting with each other's we could conclude that some are right and others wrong, or all could be wrong. But thankfully we are God's intelligent creatures who can reason. But again factual and mathematical reasoning alone will not help us find out about God, like the religious leaders of Jesus time. facts, numbers, equations, religion, rituals, ceremonies etc. We need to reason like Jesus did. See God as a Selfless Father in relational terms and interpret the scriptures in the context of love and care for others, not a self centered god who is big & calling the shots.

So, I would like to ask - What is the purpose, motive, intension in trying to prove from scripture that God kills out of justice and is justified?

We know that God is love and the life-giver. God created people to love and be loved. All the laws of God, all scripture, are summed up in one word "Love" according to Jesus and Paul.

Now, If the spouse(people) of God chooses to not love him or agree upon the law of love, in other words, to adhere to the principles of marriage, love and faithfulness, and wants to marry another, because of some reason, she's not happy with him, inspite of his love, what is the right thing (justice) for God to do?

To scold her? To beat her? To chain her? To kill her? - would you call this justice? Justice means to do the right thing. Is that the right thing for God to do? If you are reasonable you would call that "slavery, force & homicide", not justice to kill someone who doesn't agree with you and choose their lifestyle.

If you know she is wrong in her choice of marrying the wrong person (choosing sin or Satan) you know she will dry out and suffocate and eventually die because of the treatment of the wrong person (sin and Satan)- wages of sin is pain and death.

If the person is already suffocating and about to die, would it be just for God to cause further pain by PUNISHMENT and killing, and punish(BURN) until the sinner has paid for all that he/she has done? because justice demands it?

If God puts to death (euthanasia) the suffering person, because of the disease(sin)and pain, would he do that by punishing or beating, or just pull the plug and hope the life ends quickly without much pain or suffocation?

God pulled the plug out of mercy in the days of Noah and Lot after they were given ample time to stop hurting each other. And when he saw that their condition was worsening then out of mercy he put them to rest. This is from Divine Perspective, but from the carnal perspective we only see wrath, fire, blood, pain and we misunderstand God. God was not trying to inflict pain by justice, but to stop pain in love and mercy and that was justice(right thing), he stopped the pain. So mercy and justice from Divine perspective are the same.

During those times Noah and Lot, innocent children and animals died too. Where is justice then? Can God do anything and is justified?

People ask the question, then what about Hitler, Nero, who caused pain to millions. Can they escape their guilt? Aren't they answerable to God?

The question is How does God deal with Hitler on judgment day?

Let's assume - Hitler is raised. Stands before God. Books are opened. He's guilty of causing pain and death to millions. Now he must justly experience the pain he has caused to others. So since God is the judge, he either himself roles off his sleeves and slaps and punches and scourges Hitler until he has felt the pain he has caused to others, or he asks the angels do that or casts him in fire and allows hitler to burn and cook and fry until the just pain is extracted from him and then God withdraws his spirit and hitler dies. And God "SIGHS"... "AAHHH"... because his justice is appeased as sin is punished in hitler. Pardon the illustration please. It's just to make a point.

"Eye for an eye, Tooth for a Tooth principle?" we thought Jesus showed something else at the cross. Don't hurt others when they hurt you. Take the pain and love them, let them see your love and repent, and both of you can find healing, forget the past and begin a love journey convinced of each other's love.

Other hitler example sounds like a perfect pagan diety, invented by Satan in his image? Can we attribute this kind of quality to Christ and his Father? No.

I think it is not right to declare "God's justice requires him to punish sin and sinners and destroy them".

It would be better to declare "God in his mercy puts the sinner (patient, jesus called sinners as sick) to sleep" - Here even though God kills, it is beautiful, his love and character is vindicated. He even does not desire his enemies to suffer, but relieves them from suffering. He does justice, and how wonderful is that justice. And it fits the divine character of our God. Pain is relieved in this concept.

While the other interpretation of justice confuses the identity of God, makes him punishing to the core until we have paid it or sin is appeased. Purely a dark ages concept and theology. This fits the description of Satan of our God, and how suttle and diabolical can he be. Pain is imposed in this concept in the name of justice. And we dig to find scriptures to prove our point, yes OUR POINT, and not to uplift God. Sorry. Even good folks get mixed up.

But God Loves All and knows how to save.

Santhosh,
India

Thank you, Santhosh, for a beautiful sermon! Your English is right one! Your God is my God.

thanks donna, that was sweet and encouraging.

The distinct character of Christian teachings about many things, including our theology of the divine, and of life and death, show up more distinctly when compared with other worldviews. In addition, such theologies often influence social values and interpersonal relations in cultures that adopt strongly theistic positions. How do readers understand these questions, about whether God kills, in comparison with Islam and Buddhism? Why do all these theologies make necessary some kind of 'divine compassion'? And, what is expected of us who must face questions of killing in human society and life? In other words, what is the SO WHAT of Wohlberg and Lewis's views?

Reading this whole thread was interesting because it becomes so obvious to me how our individual belief systems become our glasses to view any doctrinal position.

In my view Steve and Chris are compelled to defend their view simply because it is supported by their view of the scriptures. Repeatedly in their book their final authority is a fundamentalist view of the scriptures. “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me!”

Everything they said can be supported by their view of biblical authority. And so it is with the rest of us! Where this gets complicated is when we find conflicting views within our chosen authority. The real conflict is not over the truth, but over who has chosen the right source of authority. Who do we believe?

When we talk about the law as being a transcript of God’s character could we really be saying that the true standard of truth, righteousness, freedom, love, and even reality itself are in the mind of God and expressed in everything He does? Some choose the written word as the full and final authority of God’s revelation such as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches. Some choose nature as the authority of what God is like therefore what is truth and righteousness! Some choose men that inspire them as inspiration of God! Some choose a combination.

I’ve chosen Jesus as that authority. For me He trumps the written, spoken, and even created revelations. Oh, but then one might ask, “How would you have known Jesus had it not been for the written word?” That is a fair question. May I answer it with another question? How did those 2000 years ago recognize Jesus? How were men inspired by God to write? Can the Bible really be understood without the presence of God inspiring the mind through what we call the Holy Spirit? What comes first? The chicken or the egg?

I say the chicken and others say the egg! But for those who believe that the whole Bible is equal authority on God’s character I would like to point out that it is the written scriptures that give Jesus the trump card. They are what point to His coming, place Him in the crossroads of civilization, crossroads of time, tells us of the nation, tribe, family, and place of birth of which we could expect His coming. They all pointed to Him. And He came! And He claimed the authority to represent God perfectly which no one had ever claimed before.

I would suggest that those who refuse to give Jesus the authority to tell us what God is like are the ones who don’t respect the scriptures and demand we tear out pages. I wonder how many prophets would argue Jesus’ life and words with their own by suggesting that they are equal to Him in telling us what God is like!

scott

"it is the written scriptures that give Jesus the trump card. They are what point to His coming, place Him in the crossroads of civilization, crossroads of time, tells us of the nation, tribe, family, and place of birth of which we could expect His coming. They all pointed to Him. And He came!

It was not until many years AFTER Jesus was resurrected and left this earth, that the NT writers started to "see" that much earlier prophecies had "lo and behold" been foretelling Jesus and no one had ever noticed before! The two genealogies supposedly telling of his tribe, were very different (which is correct?) and neither could be right unless he was actually Joseph's biological son, which voids the Virgin Birth (supposedly taken from Isaiah). Amazing, how past history can be read as foretelling the future once it has passed by.

Who, during the time Jesus was here proclaimed that he fulfilled all the prophecies? The earliest Gospel, Mark, was not written until a generation had passed, so where is the indication that anyone at that time fully understood the Hebrew prophecies? They were reinterpreted in a very contrived way to "prove" that Jesus fulfilled them and were written for other times and circumstances long ago fulfilled.

What I hear in your last comment, Elaine, is that the written word holds very little, if any, authority in your theology because it was put together after the fact.

So, if what I observed is true, why do you assume there was a resurrected Jesus at all?

scott

It may be difficult for some folks to objectively discuss a book while not agreeing with everything in it. This seems to be particularly difficult when discussing the Bible.

All other books should be subjected to open discussion of what is written in them, without necessarily accepting everything as above questioning.

For those who accept, without question, everything written in the Bible as the infallible and inerrant "Word of God" it is most difficult to approach it similarly: it is sacrosanct, and no questions or doubts should be voiced.

Yes, the resurrection is written in Scripture--at least a generation after it was said to have occurred; the Virgin Birth seems to be absolutely unknown by the earliest writers, who, evidently never heard anything about it.

When miraculous events are reported in the news today, there is instant scrutiny and explanations sought. Things were entirely different today. When was the last time you heard about a virgin birth? Or a dead man brought to life?
Why did they only happen thousands of years ago? They were not thought to be unusual before the time of Jesus, as there was belief in magic, superstitions, and yes, virgin births were almost common in the pagan deities.

Right or wrong, belief or unbelief, Jesus, Himself set the stage for both the Gospel stories and the Epistles in His walk to Emmaus. Beginning with Moses, He retold all things regarding the Messianic expectations. He, according, to writings a generation later, set the stage for the Christian faith. I am a Thomas, but I have no other place to go, but to John and Paul's Jesus. "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief!" Tom

By Elaine: “When miraculous events are reported in the news today, there is instant scrutiny and explanations sought. Things were entirely different today. When was the last time you heard about a virgin birth? Or a dead man brought to life?
Why did they only happen thousands of years ago? They were not thought to be unusual before the time of Jesus, as there was belief in magic, superstitions, and yes, virgin births were almost common in the pagan deities.”

Magic, miracles, superstition, and virgin births were/are much of what religion is based on today, when Jesus came, and all the way back to the first altar Adam built to bring gifts to God. But that didn’t detour God from communicating with us in what we believed to be holy. Biblical history is decorated with God condescending into the human reality in order to communicate with us. He revealed Himself in the context of our ignorance. He spoke to us through our own paradigm even using our emotions to express His passion and our pen to speak His words. What a risk!

Of course it is after we found out the truth about Him that we begin to put it all together. We can only see God in retrospect. Prophecy was never intended to be a crystal ball so that we could know the future (as bleak as that sounds to Steve and Chris’s futuristic theology). Prophecy was intended for us to look back on and see a full picture of God’s involvement in our salvation. Looking back gives us hope and faith that God ultimately knows what He is doing and is active in His love for us.

Our faith isn’t based on knowing the future, but in knowing God’s heart. That is what Jesus revealed in fullness all wrapped up in a human package that would take years to process.

In my theology the written word was to succumb to the word made flesh. It was to introduce us to Jesus, God stripped of everything but His character. Jesus was and is the essence of the great controversy. Not the Holy Bible, not our holy icons, not our holy men, holy churches, or holy wars, but our wholly hearts that are either smitten by His love or repelled by His true character.

Jesus is the judgment! We are either drawn to Him or run the other way. And (in the Bible) salvation is only to those who love Him. Never to all of those whom He loves.

scott

Scott,

I appreciate and respect your faith very much. However, in all honesty how would you, or could you ever know about Jesus if you did not totally believe what men long ago wrote about him? Isn't that the essence of faith: belief in what you have heard but not seen? If so, you are also placing your faith as much in humans and their retelling of a story as the hero of the story.

I've been listening to the Homeric epic of The Iliad and the Odyssey. Must I believe that Homer wrote those words? Must I believe that all of the gods and heroes were actual, living beings? Or, do I understand that it was the Greeks way of glorifying their past and setting forth their heroes as objects of admiration?

Separating the literal from ideas and concepts became more of a problem several hundred or more years ago when people began to read all of the Bible as descriptions of historical fact rather than, like Homer's epic which was contemporary with the written Scriptures, as almost deified warriors of their past.

The Hebrews also desired heroes. Abraham, Jacob,
and Moses became their greatest exemplars of what a good Jew should emulate. Christians accepted Jesus as a great rabbi and teacher, much like Moses or Elijah and followed him and his teachings; initially by Jews and later Gentiles became the much larger Christian group.
His teachings have been more powerful than anyone since and millions have looked to his advice to live as he lived. Whether all the miracles attributed to his birth and life would be relevant today, who knows? But those who choose to live by his teachings should surely be called Christians, shouldn't they? Or, what name would you suggest?

Elaine,

You make an excellent point. Christianity is either a delusion or it is faith. The only part that is testable is the Scriptural description of man's condition. If one is honest with ones self--there is a true need for an external source of healing and relief from a sense of estrangement.

The Christ event, provides those needs completely--other religious systems do not.

So faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
The Christ event is a perfect match for this man's needs.

If it turns out wrong--it still is the best life style, I can imagine. I wouldn't want to live my life under any other propositions. The tragedy is that Christianity has been so fouled by the constrictions and elaborations of man as to disgust many would be believers. I don't doubt the Christ event, I do reject what man has done with it in the name of evangelism and "Christian living". Even if there is no "after life" as promised--I still favor the true life style of the Gospel and Epistles. Sleepless nights are of pain never of fear. No one can buy that! Tom

Hi Elaine,

One can call themselves what they want. Which teachings of Christ should we follow and how do we know which teachings from the NT are really Christ’s teachings? Maybe his followers made up the beatitudes as well as the resurrection.

Christ claimed to be the “I Am”! If He wasn’t then isn’t He a liar! What I hear you saying is that we can believe in the teachings of Christ and be called Christians yet not believe that Christ had a virgin birth, wasn’t really a fulfillment of the prophecies, wasn’t really God in the flesh, never really did miracles, and never really experienced resurrection. So what authority supports your belief system? Science? Archeology? Genetics? Who will you believe and what evidence will you accept.

To believe exactly what Jesus taught yet not believe that He was God revealing God makes His sacrifice a bad joke. If, indeed, He did die at all or was ever here at all! Do you believe that the real God of the universe is like Jesus in character or is that something the apostles made up too?

Back to the book in review! I wonder if Steve and Chris’s fundamentalist views are any much more dangerous than, say, believing there is no authority outside my own judgment! One thing I do believe is that God can draw a circle large enough to fit us all in.

scott

"So what authority supports your belief system?"

Many of the teachings found in the NT are excellent guides for life. The Golden Rule, which is found in dozens of cultures, predating the Bible, is still the finest guide ever given and no one has improved upon it and Jesus endorsed it.

The ability to live with ambiguity: not having answers to all of life's questions, allows us to struggle and develop our reasoning ability that is far and beyond simple "do's and don't's" To be at peace without the answers gives me complete comfort--to accept what I cannot control.

Week after week I see Elaine holding the flag for a way of understanding her faith that does not follow the script. Good for you! I like the way you handled the question: "So what authority supports your belief system?" This question is at the heart of modernism, but we (some of us) no longer look to "authorities" to support our belief systems. We see all scriptures and traditions as resources and rules for the game of meaning. We take responsibility for constructing and deconstructing our beliefs on the changing basis of our perceptions of the human condition, our attraction to or outrage at the pragmatic consequences of ideologies lived out in the public view, our unquenchable thirst for new information that challenges or confirms previous opinions. Science, scriptures, social mores, are available for anyone to construct their own world view. But we know at every moment that our beliefs are our own creations from the array of mental detritis called education. What is not acceptable is to pretend we know when we don't, to suppress others (especially students)from following viewpoints which we don't espouse, and to settle for the status quo because it is more comfortable than "the road less travelled". We are ectoplasm in process, moldable souls on a lifetime journey, embodied imaginations flying across the infinite sky of metaphors and sensation. In all this, we can love, hope, cry and believe...because it what humans do.

Graeme

I understand the peace one finds in believing in the Jesus of the NT, but am yet to experience peace that is found in having no authority other than my own wisdom. I personally am thankful for believing in revelations God has inspired others with in the past. The men don’t have to be perfect or even see things perfectly. That just tells me that God is not afraid to mingle with those who are ignorant in comparison. He is not intimidated by opinions or changed by consensus.

I also agree that the golden rule is more than good. It is the very principle of goodness and has existed from eternity in the heart and creation of God. But if God is just a principle and there is no person/God and all we have to look forward to is the hope that some generation will learn to keep the golden rule and all will be peace then I am most distressed. Simply because I’ve never learned to keep it! No promise of resurrection! No afterlife! If Jesus wasn’t God and was not, as He claimed, one with the Father then I see little hope for the future or purpose for the past.

I applaud your peace that passes my understanding.

scott

does God kill?

isn't our whole belief based on the ancient autobiography of a small tribe of nomads who claimed their God was a mass murderer?

heres a numbered count....
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed....

heres a revised estimate including all those victims of God's love and justice who couldn't be counted, ie, millions during the alleged "flood".
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-many-has-god-killed-...

ever wonder who has killed more people? God or Satan?
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/who-has-killed-more-sata...

maybe that's why the Old part of the Good Book says to "fear God"....

By John: “isn't our whole belief based on the ancient autobiography of a small tribe of nomads who claimed their God was a mass murderer?”

Mine isn’t! It is based on Jesus who never killed His enemies, but gave Himself to His enemies to be killed, treated prostitutes with dignity and compassion, healed disease instead of inflicting it, treated sinners like friends, and claimed to be exactly like His Father.

The question is who is misunderstanding God? Jesus or . . . ?

scott

I'm on the same page as you, Scott, when you say that your foundation for belief is the reality of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

That's the reality that saved my life.

Does God punish the child who is already dying? “Of course not," some of us say. Then why do many Christians promote the idea that God must punish the sinner? The implications of this popular scenario, pumped out of countless pulpits worldwide, are disturbing. God gave an entire planet to mankind – a planet fully stocked with goodies and he blessed them (Gen 1:28).

He plants a Knowledge Tree in the middle of the garden, allows it as a dwelling place for an evil sentient serpent and then explains to the Adam and Eve they are truly free and that freedom comes with natural consequences – some leading to life, others to ruin. The reptile, knowing his boundary, uses his cunning to deceive the man and woman into slipping him the key that unlocks this boundary. It’s very deliberate – the man and woman’s involvement.

Next thing we know, we have a couple cowering in the brambles to escape the wrath of their Father they know so well. Their Father comes, finds their covert hiding place, and then we read what appears to be this same loving Father - who just handed them a galaxy system as a wedding gift - inflicting a pretty harsh sentence.

Some of us were told as children it was punishment that Adam and Eve deserved for being bad and then we grew up to tell our children who have told their children. Today we have a picture of God who is no more than a harsh authoritarian who runs his universe on the reward punishment system - a system that we know does not work just by opening our eyes and taking a look around. I’d like to suggest that this assumption, many of us grew up with, is flawed.

If the first couple and an evil angel were truly free – then why would God retaliate by cursing the ground they walked on? (Gen 3:14-19 ) Why would God take the patient who has a broken leg and break the other in order to set things right? Bones, nor character ever mended by administration of further trauma to either.

Let’s back up. God explained to the man and woman about the Knowledge Tree and the consequences (Gen 2:16,17). The bible wastes no time in revealing how free mankind truly is. God says, “Hey, you are so free that I will prove it by actually allowing you to have access to choice. You can choose, but choose carefully.”

Did he say if they touched the tree he would kill them? Did he say if they ate of the tree he’d smash them? Did God say that if they even skipped around the tree trunk and carved their names into the bark he’d thump them good? Nope.

What God said is that in the middle of your mind sits choice – and choice is good, very good. In the middle of your Eden home sits a box – Pandora’s Box - a box brimming with death and destruction. Adam and Even opened that box. The common held belief is that all curses mankind suffers under are from God’s just hand but the reality is this: Satan and his ranks are free too. And he fairly and squarely asked that Adam and Even unlock his box and they willingly did. Once He was given permission by Earth’s Landlords to enter their domain, he was given permission to wreak utter chaos.

See, the human race is not the only free creation, the entire universe is free and that counts spiritual beings. The world as we know it suffers under the harassment and influence and continuing deception of evil.

The good news is that God himself came to the earth as a man to remind everyone what he’s really like. Because of this, we are promised a future (Jer 29:11) yet the war is far from over. Truth and goodness reigns even now – albeit in small pockets but its here. We all have a personal story to tell that echoes the compassion and mercy of heaven on earth (Isaiah 11:6) and are even told by God himself that the kingdom is within us (Luke 17) which means we need not wait. Salvation is today (2 Cor 6:2)

The Dali Lama believes that man is inherently good and the proof is in our astonishment of hearing reports of rampant evil . He goes on to explain that there is so much good all around us that we take it for granted and barely notice. He believes that if good was not the more powerful force, then man would cease to exist.

The bible teaches that we were created for goodness, not evil. We were created to glorify and manifest God’s character here and now, not on some ethereal plane in the future (John 17:3). We are a holy priesthood, a holy nation tailor designed to demonstrate just how truly free God made us. So when you head out the door, take note of all the Knowledge Trees, and the serpents sitting in the low branches and decide for yourself this day whom you will serve. We really are free to choose.

Ron,

Reality is my focus and that focus is what prompted me to say there really is room for all - some don't believe it, like yourself but I'm living proof and so are you. We are both SDA members and have or are currently holding leadership positions. No one is banging down my door to disfellowship me, though I'm not sure of your experience.

See, it really is possible to take the bible as it reads or not at all and still love the Kingdom principles. It really is possible to take EGW or not, and still not be an idiot or wrong or lost or delusional. Its possible to be all of the above and still be an SDA - or not.

This black-and-white categorical thinking I am hearing is only good for one thing - painting one into a corner but even then, there is room for that person. Its up to you on whether or not you have enough energy to continue to blast the church for using EGW or for others to blast the church for not using her enough. I say knock yourself out but its a hard road. I've been there.

You listen to GNT to hear how often or how little we mention EGW or how much of an influence she has on Hs.com - why? Last time I checked, anytime a person or institution presumes to exert limitations, strong-arm or bully another for their personal preference I say, "run for the hills" for it is this sort of accusing and criticism of personal freedom of expression that chases everyone away.

Hs.com is here to stay. The team will continue to think for themselves answering to God, not man's rules, humbly, respectfully and peacefully. The Good News Tour will continue on until we decide to recreate, if ever. I will continue to write articles proclaiming the good news that revolutionized my life and maybe even mention EGW at times. But I will also mention Gordon,Kierkegaard,Rosenberg, Zinn,Locke, Day, Mellody, Beattie, Jaynes, Nies, Wink, Juhnke, Harris, Dawkins, Rogers, Nietzsche - the list goes on.

And an hundred years from now - people better still talking about all this...

Santhosh,

Marco says hello back and sends his love in friendship. Glad you have enjoyed the Good News Tour dvds. Keep perpetuating the love of God that draws all.

Glad you are here.

:-)

The question is intriguing - is God is a killer or not? There are three critical points in salvation history to which one must concentrate one's attention in order to move toward a definitve answer.

The first is at the existential beginning - at the point of God's conversation with Adam in Paradise about the possibility of death. On its face, did God ever threaten to destroy his new creation, to kill his children created in his image, if they distrusted his wisdom and rejected his authority? Clearly, no. What he seems to have done was to warn them of the horrible tragedy that would occur should they choose such a path. "Definitely, you will die" were his words of warning, not "I will definitely kill you". If we can believe the account, this, it seems to me, helps to clarify the issue.

The second is the death of Jesus. As bearer of all the griefs, diseases, and transgressions of humankind, his experience of the cross is the real definition of death and dying in so far as it speaks to the inherent relation between sin and death. On the face of it, did Jesus ever assert that His Father was killing him? Clearly, no. His cry, "eli, eli, lama sabachthani", describes a sensation of feeling ultimately God-forsaken. What the narrative records is that Jesus, even in going through the agony of absolute rejection by Jerusalem, God, too, was giving him up, in some inscrutable way withdrawing his protecting shield, thus leaving him to suffer a horrible death - a path that he himself had before freely chosen.

The third is the death spoken of as the final disposition of the curse of sin. Like dried bramble, ultimate despisers of creation's goodness and rejectors of God's wisdom are left to be and experience what they have truly become, highly combustible material. Having fully and finally renounced their Creator's protecting shield with its life-giving properties, his very presence is to them "a consuming fire". For such, death's inherent sting is fully experienced. And it is horrible, truly definitive of the horror God had in mind when he warned back in Paradise that the path of rejection of the life-giver, life-preserver, and healer leaves one naked and exposed.

Is God the executioner in these defining situations? Clearly, no. Biblically, one can hardly escape the fact that, for tactical or strategic reasons, God can and apparently has produced conditions in the past that resulted in the destruction of human beings, most notably the anti-diluvian civilization. But at those critical points where the innate destructive nature of sin and evil is defined, God is not portrayed as the executioner.

Santhosh and Hedrick

Thanks for your comments of which I felt that you where the only ones that tried to answer some of my questions that I have posted on 02 February 2009 at 10:23

Santhosh, you posted it from India on 05 February 2009 at 12:45. Here in Austria I was very pleased of your deep and thoughtful concept of a wonderful God of love and not of punishment always just trying to punish and kill when sin appears. Many Christians all over this world even proclaim that God was even forced to deliver His Son to wicked men in order to sacrifice Him as a sin offering so that He could be proven as holy, just and loving God and to be able to forgive sinners without being accused by the devil for doing so! I think you earn much more attention in your comment than you finally got.
I also think, if you are living in India you must know that Christianity has a great problem to preach the cross of Christ among Hindus, Moslems and Buddhists as we usually do in telling them, that God had to deliver Christ to wicked men and to kill His Son on a cross, so that He could have the right to forgive sins and to bring them salvation. Could you say something to that? How do you see the problem as a native of India!

Hedrick,

I felt you where also reacting in your posting yesterday somehow my reflections. I especially like your following conclusion:

+++++++++++++++
“Is God the executioner in these defining situations? Clearly, no. Biblically, one can hardly escape the fact that, for tactical or strategic reasons, God can and apparently has produced conditions in the past that resulted in the destruction of human beings, most notably the anti-diluvian civilization. But at those critical points where the innate destructive nature of sin and evil is defined, God is not portrayed as the executioner.
++++++++++++++++

Your comment maid me think of some very interesting and for most of Adventists not even known statements of Ellen G. White, which could confirm what you said. They deal with the question who are real responsible for all death and destruction and loss of lives in this world since Adam´s sin. She also talks or even “speculates” about the question if Adam and Eve where responsible of all sins and consequences on this earth and what would have happened if sin had nor been continued after Adam and Eve´s first sin. Here they are:

"Disease and premature death have so long prevailed, with an ever-increasing weight of suffering, that they have come to be regarded as the appointed lot of humanity. But this is not the case. God is not the author of the many woes to which mortals are subject; it is not because He desires to see His creatures suffer that there is so much misery in this world. Neither is it all due to Adam's transgression. We may mourn over the fall in Eden, and think that our first parents showed great weakness in yielding to temptation, thus opening the door for sin to enter our world, with all its attendant evils. But the first transgression is not the only cause of our unhappy lot. A succession of falls has occurred since Adam's day." {Pacific Health Journal PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 8}

“Adam's day to ours there has been a succession of falls, each greater than the last, in
every species of crime. God did not create a race of beings so devoid of health, beauty, and moral power as now exists in the world. Disease of every kind has been fearfully increasing
upon the race. This has not been by God's especial providence, but directly contrary to His will. It has come by man's disregard of the very means which God has ordained to shield him from the terrible evils existing. Obedience to God's law in every respect would save men from intemperance, licentiousness, and disease of every type. No one can violate natural law without suffering the penalty.-(RH, March 4, 1875)

“Would that the Fall of Adam and Eve had been the only fall; but from the loss of Eden to the present time, there has been a succession of falls. Satan has planned to ruin man, by
leading him away from loyalty to the commandments of God, and one of his most successful methods is that of tempting him to the gratification of perverted appetite. We see on all sides
the marks of man's intemperance. In our cities and villages the saloon is on every corner, and in the countenances of its patrons we see the dreadful work of ruin and destruction. On every
side, Satan seeks to entice the youth into the path of perdition; and if he can once get their feet set in the way, he hurries them on in their downward course, leading them from one dissipation to another, until his victims lose their tenderness of conscience, and have no more the fear of God before their eyes.

They exercise less and less self-restraint. They become addicted to the use of wine and alcohol, tobacco and opium, and go from one stage of debasement to another. They are slaves
to appetite. Counsel which they once respected, they learn to despise. They put on swaggering airs, and boast of liberty when they are the servants of corruption. They mean by liberty that they are slaves to selfish ness, debased appetite, and licentiousness. (Te-PG- 273)

“If the race had ceased to fall when Adam was driven from Eden, we should now be in a far more elevated condition physically, mentally, and morally. But while men deplore the fall of Adam, which has resulted in such unutterable woe, they disobey the express Injunctions of God, as did Adam, although they have his example to warn them from doing as he did in violating the law of Jehovah. Would that man had stopped falling with Adam. But there has been a succession of falls. Men will not take warning from Adam's experience. They will indulge appetite and passion in direct violation of the law of God, and at the same time continue to mourn Adam's transgression, which brought sin into the world.” -BC- 1BC-PG- 1082)

Are these statements not very thoughtful and worth to think them a little deeper? But may I ask you now the following questions ?????
Do we in our SDA Theology of today still think of the possibility that in fact sin could have ceased even after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden? Does this concept not contradict completely our theology of the fall of men and the original sin and his fatal consequences for all children of Adam?

In our Adventist and even Christian theology today we teach and believe that since the first sin of Adam and Eve their human inner nature has changed at the moment of the first sin in a nature that would not be able anymore to resist sin because of a inner passion and unresistable inclination to sin. So that’s why we say and generally teach or churches and the whole world that since Adam we are all lost and sold to sin without any power and help to resist to that power of sin. Even with the help of God and the Holy Spirit we would never be able in this sinful fallen nature to resist sin as God would like to see it. So since Adam why we are all lost captured under Satans control and dominion.

The only way out would be that Jesus would have to die on our place so that God would even have been forced to send his Son in this world and to deliver Him to fallen, sinful and wicked men to be scourge, beaten and to be killed on a shameful cross in order to pay the penalty for our sins and be able to forgive men and give them the hope of eternal life. Isn´t it what we in sum really believe and teach????

If this is true, so please tell me how could Ellen G. White write what she did in those statements up here???
But if she was right in her principal thinking and if she was even just thinking of the possibility that after the first sin of Adam and Eve sin could have ceased in this world and would not had been absolute necessary to be continued in them and their children, so what consequence would that have had for the plan of salvation for Adam and all his children on this earth, which would have been still born in this world after their expulsion of the Eden?

Would Jesus have had still to come to this world some time after the first sin they did, so that he could die or even to be killed by someone on a cross for the atonement of that only sin of Adam and Eve; even if they and their children would not have continued to sin after the first sin, as Ellen G. White thought it as possibility for them?????

Could it be that in thinking deeper and in trying to answer to such questions, which we probably consider as very speculating ones, we could find also the answer who or what kills finally the sinner?

Before you answer this question still consider carefully the following statement, where Ellen G. White was “speculating” (?) about what could have still be happened after the Cain killed his brother Abel!

“How was it in Noah's day?--"God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Had man co-operated with God, there would have been no Cain-worshipers. Abel's example of obedience would have been followed. Men might have worked out the will of God. They might have obeyed his law, and in obedience they would have found salvation. God and the heavenly universe would have helped them to retain the divine likeness. Longevity would have
been preserved; and God would have delighted in the work of his hands. But the inhabitants of the antediluvian world turned from Jehovah, refusing to do his will. They followed their unholy imagination and perverted ideas. "God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, . . . Make thee an ark of gopherwood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it
within and without with pitch. . . . And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." RH-DT- 12-27-98

I think that this does explain very deeply how to understand the flood and all other destructions in human history up to our day and still in future!

But if Ellen G. White was right in her reflections, so I again would like to ask, what consequences it would have had for the higher plan of salvation, if there would have not been no Cain-worshipers after his criminal act on his brother? So if the children of Adam would not have continued the way of sin and the way of Cain, so what would have been the way of salvation for the sin that had been committed up to that time of Cain??? Would Jesus still have had to come and to be killed by someone or just to die or to be offered as a literal sacrifice in order to atone for the sins committed up to that time of Cain´s murder? Or would God himself had been forced to offer his Son as a sacrifice for the sins???

Ellen G White writes:
“Adam's day to ours there has been a succession of falls, each greater than the last, in
every species of crime. …”

One of the greatest species of crimes in history was the crucifixion of Jesus. So if I understand Ellen White rightly she must have been thinking that the death or criminal killing of Christ as it happened could have been avoided. And as a farther consequence we should ask the question, what would have happened if the Jews and Romans and all other people and religious and political rulers of that time had not been Cain-Worshipers and had killed their brother or even their real Father or Creator and Saviour. Was it possible that Jesus could have saved His people and the world from sin and death, without being scourged, beaten and without dying on a cruel cross, as it was even foreseen by Jesus and the prophets?

Could I find in the following words of the rest of the above statement a certain answer to that question:

“This has not been by God's especial providence, but directly contrary to His will. It has come by man's disregard of the very means which God has ordained to shield him from the terrible evils existing. Obedience to God's law in every respect would save men from intemperance, licentiousness, and disease of every type. No one can violate natural law without suffering the penalty.-(RH, March 4, 1875)

So who finally bore and still will bear the real penalty of sin? Do all these statements from EGW fit in our theology of penal substitution and of penal atonement? Or would we have to rethink our concept of salvation and our theology of sin and punishment and of the consequences of sin, if EGW was right in thinking so???? Or is that another prove that she can not be trusted as a prophet inspired of God???

I wonder what answers all of your readers are going to give me to that concept of thinking of Ellen G. White as a very discussed prophet among us. Was she right in her thinking that way and is it helpful for our understanding of the problems of all the questions we are discussing and which we obviously still have?

Thanks for trying to reflect a little while on that!

Armin

Hello once again, all of you.

Thanks Stacie and Armin for your nice words and others
too for your comments and views on this topic.

I am very thankful to God that this topic has been bought out as an issue in the adventist church, also as a controversy, as it makes possible for people to at least come across a discussion like this on God's character and see the different views, the alternate views on God's love, mercy, justice and as it sheds light on the subjects of punishment, hell etc...

Personally i feel it's a success to those who have been trying hard to uplift God's character as loving and merciful
and not a God of false justice of pain, punishment and destruction, but as a Savior from those things.

Recently i read a wonderful article on this subject, Does God Kill, by Brad Cole. It gives a deep insight on this subject.
Kindly check it out:

http://www.godscharacter.com/index.php?topic=Sin

And please feel free to comment on that, over here.

**************************************************************

And Armin

Regarding India, as there is vast variety of religions and beliefs it is hard to convince people of the true God but since it is majorly hindu and they have the concept that all gods are one they respect Christ as one of the gods and not as the only True God.

Telling that Jesus is the Only True God and the only way of salvation can cause major problems either in friendships or in the community as they hear it as "your gods are false and
you can't be saved. Their pride is hurt, they feel inferior and react in various ways. One needs to be careful and diplomatic in their approach.

The average person sees Jesus and the Cross as something beautiful, they respect the cross as they see Jesus forgiving those whom beat him. That's all they know. So in one way the average person does not struggle with this idea of justice, punishment on sin, wrath of God etc. All they know is Jesus was a person, a messenger, who did good to people - a good person. And since religion is involved they pray to him. They have a good picture at least a good concept of Jesus.

During seasons like christmas and easter, it gives christians and oppurtunity to share the Jesus through movies, booklets, so they at least hear the words of Jesus, and also the creaton story. And that's quiet effective for sharing more if they are moved or interested.

The problem again is with some theologians and church people who have this false idea of the sacrifice of Jesus and the lake of fire.

So the cross which the average person sees as a symbol of goodness and forgivess, church people see it as a mixture of mercy and wrath of God. Most don't understand the dangers of this idea, just like i had no emotional reaction when i used to believe that God burns people forever in hell, or for a while in purgatory when i was a Catholic. And they seem to defend that idea as God's wrath on sin and justice.

I see the same blindness among Protestants and Adventists, where they simply have this view and try to explain and defend this false idea and theology.

Most Catholic and Protestant ministers seem to have no problems whatsoever connecting the punishment, the pain,
the suffering, the torture as an imposed penalty of God on Jesus, as his wrath on sin and justice done.

The simple point then would be - God imposes pain, punishment, suffering, suffocation etc etc..on sin and sinners as his justice and wrath on sin.

God's justice here is attached or connected to his torturing sin, and since people have sin he either has to torture their soul, mind or body and cause pain to appease hiw wrath or justice. I respectfully disagree. It really grieves me that people would adamantly and stubborly support such a doctrine without honestly giveing it another look, and what it does to the character of God. just because we've been taught something through ages doesn't make it true.

And how does it affects us here is India? I see people who have this false idea perpetrating this concept and sharing it with the community as gospel truth. What an oxymoron!!!

The community is being told to obey God and his law, or else faith the dreadful conseqeunecs of sin - God's wrath and justice on sin.

This does not sound like good news to me, but dreadful news which is capable of getting intelligent, senstive minds into insane asylums or being mean towards each other fault finding, judgmental, rebuking and disfellowship people in the name of justice and righteousness. After all God is like that, you see?

May our eyes be opened to the truth.

PS: Here's a link, a video, that gives sensible answers on ths subject on God's justice, wrath, etc.

http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/mediagallery/media.php?f=0&sort=0&s=200...

God Bless.

Bye Armin.

Santhosh
India

**************************************************************

people,

i'm sorry for the spelling and other mistakes in my comment above. i hope you understand what i've tried to communicate. it's late and i'm still at work and since it's closing time, i typed fast thus the mistakes.

aloha.

Stacie wrote:
--
Ron,

Reality is my focus and that focus is what prompted me to say there really is room for all - some don't believe it, like yourself but I'm living proof and so are you. We are both SDA members and have or are currently holding leadership positions.
No one is banging down my door to disfellowship me, though I'm not sure of your experience.

---

Probably a different reality then, as a lot of people see what they want to see, but that does not make it reality. I volunteered to help lead my daughters early teen class, but after our first class it appears our head elder went to my blog (or someone directed him to it) and used my statements from my article Why I am still a Progressive Adventist.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-am-progressive-seventh-day.htm...

The two main problems the leader of the children's ministry division and the head elder had were that I don't believe in the inerrant Bible (something that is true of Adventism in general but not apparently our Elders) and that I did not hold Ellen White as a prophet. So I was asked to resign. None of those people have talked to me since other then a hello walking by. We have a new Pastor who was not present at the time as we were between pastors and he has said nothing to me. I wrote letters to these people and I challenged their decision on my blog asking for their plans to reach young people. You can read that series together in order at:
http://tlcet.blogspot.com/

Possibly what you see as reality is due to a more liberal attitude in California or more likely Adventism does not care so much what one accepts of Ellen White as that they accept her as a prophet. So that you don't think there is a problem in that regard. Because frankly most of the stuff on HS.com is out of Ellen White, trying to make it somehow conform with a more logical view of God and when it does not work saying well if she was alive today she would not say those things or she was still growing.

By the way I met a couple on Christian Forums, a Pastor and his wife, they began to doubt the IJ and investigated it and came to reject it which means they ended up rejecting Ellen White who is frankly foursquare IJ. So he resigned as a pastor, so no one knocked down his door either yet it was certainly not a welcoming environment. The reality is that you really can't hold a leadership position save teaching an adult study class if you reject Ellen White as a prophet, that being a prophet in the old testament style not in the every Christian is a prophet concept. After all that is really what got me banned from HS.com and now to see how accepting you believe the SDA church is, well someone may not really be living in the real world.

Ron

Ron,

I really don't have any wise words just concern and wonder at how we got here.

After a few years of this back and forth bantering - is there a possibility we could ever be friends? Even if I accept some of EGW and you accept none? Please tell me that the one person you lobby against is not going to be what comes between you and I.

Peace,

-Stacie

Ron,

Sorry, forgot to mention:

You were banned from Hs.com for not accepting EGW? Someone from the Hs.com team told you specifically that you were banned for this? Interesting since we have team members who are not SDA.

Talk to me.

Stacie

Glad to join you again.

Since i'm involved in studying and sharing the gospel of Christ, which is the character of God, any discussion on this gets my attention.

Especially, when this subject is debated.

I'm SDA for 7 years now, converted from Catholic views of God.

To be honest i've had a potluck of experiences in the christian church. From Catholic i went to other churches before watching a adventist prophecy seminar called Millennium of Prophecy and that's how i became an Adventist, based on prophecy studies and facts that were convincing.

Because it was all presented like mathematics like 2+2=4, so facts, and a lot of excitement on the end of the world, scary second coming, 3 angels messages, etc. The point - Facts, excitement, fear and a sprinkling of god's love and grace here and there, but primarily it was mostly facts and selfish motive to be saved from the coming wrath sought of thing.

Well, to be honest, i have friends at church, converts from Hinduism who watched Walter Veith, Doug Batchelor series and
were intellectually stimulated and joined the church. When i question if the ever felt any kind of fear as they heard the presentations on second coming, plagues etc, they said "No"

And these guys just keep pushing what they have learnt intellectually without having any emotions towards what
they are saying, at least from what i've seen.

At the same time i see people getting nervous as they hear these people present topics in a exciting fear provoking manner, affecting them emotionally. And these have no problem believing God's justice will one day destroy sin and sinners, because i think they aren't emotional enough - to see the fear factor in those things, cause they preach something on that and aren't disturbed. Either they think they are righteous or they don't truly see the fearful aspects presented by these evangelists.

Well, I guess it's okay for starters to be this way, as some have said. Either intellectually or fearfully stimulated, but the problem is if a perfect revelation of God's love is not eventually given or seen, then the entire christian journey becomes one blind(just head knowlegde) or self centered motive(fear) to serve God and it's very sad when that happens. It's pitiful cause they can't help it, cause that is all they are given by the so called bible teachers who conduct seminars and that's all they communicate, and even after they join the church on this paradigm, which is false and incomplete, and keep harping on this paradigm - which ivolves excitement and fear.

Now since these seminars also talk about God's grace, love and salvation - which in my opinion is either shallow, incomplete, confusing (based on what i've seen and experienced) because the cross i presented as love and also as justice, and all the fearful acts of God in the past, present and future is connected to his justice. So folks get confused about God's love and his dealings with people.

The concept of God's grace and love are thwarted as his justice (preached by these evangelists) involving pain, destruction and death is communicated as justice. How do you reconcile both? God saves out of love and God executes out of justice - and people get confused, just what Satan wants.

After much study, i can see that God saves out of love, and also puts an end to sinners out of love. In every act i can see his love and mercy, and i have come to a conclusion that his love and mercy and justice are the same.

Talking about the character of God movement, like the good news tour and others, i think they are defending the scripture "perfect love casts out all fear" and thus establishing a fearless trusting attitude towards God and obedience to him based on this attitude.

God is love, there is nothing to fear in love, love does no harm, love is others centered. So whatever God does should be in this context. Anything outside of that is not in harmony with the truth about God, his character.

So God's justice, judgments, punishment, wrath etc must be understood in the context of his love - care for others. We need to see God's love even in certain stories that seems so harsh and fearful and defend God's acts as done in love for others, and not make the mistake of interpreting these painful stories as his anger & justice and induce phobia, nervous breakdowns trepidation, and a fearful distruusting attitude towards God.

To put it in a nutshell, God is love, he made people for love. When people reject his love and begin to do selfish hurtful things to themselves & each other and are stubborn - then it requires of a loving God in love to intervene and either correct by awakening the sinners who is treading on dangerous grounds, or if unrepentant and causing chaos and misleading people in society to stop him either by flood or fire etc..IN LOVE AND MERCY = JUSTICE as God has done, NOT AS WRATHFUL = FALSE JUSTICE, INJUSTICE.

Now the point is - God in love is just stopping the sinner. God is not intimidating the sinner with pain, and imposed suffocation from him, God is concerned about the DEATH, the eternal seperation from him.

In the stories of punishment, like the flood and fire there has been only little pain involved in stopping the sinner.

The flood caused some suffocation, but it was little and quickly faded as they died, God was not preserving their breath and life so they would experience enough pain accoring to what they deserve, and it's the same with fire. God is not magnifying the suffering that the flood caused, as it was only for a while, only for a while - it was not God's will nor intention. He sent the flood to stop them, not to make them suffocate enough until justive was appeased on each sinner. But since there was suffocation involved in stopping or putting the sinner to sleep, we can't declare that he wanted to impose pain for their sins, because they were extremely wicked and were doing things unrepentantly for 120 years. So, the pain was not equalling the sin here - as they only suffered for a while and died. It was quick. if you believe that God inflicts punishment and pain on sin and sinners as justice, then why did they suffer only for a while for all those years of sin? Even Sodom and Gomorrah? So justice is not the pain caused to sinners, but justice is as you see God putting chronic diseased sinners to sleep. He's saving them from their wretched condition. That's sounds like wonderful justice and God is vindicated and his character shines and fear is removed and makes it possible for people to love God and draw nearer to him.

I personally appreciate the good news tour, as they present a God of love, and his love in all that he has done, even when in the stories which seems so cruel on the part of God, but he is not, his justice is not the pain and suffering he causes to people, even though it is involved, his justice towards sinners is to stop them from hurting self and others,
death. And even this God does sadly - his strange act - not as punishment on sin.

More Later.

For better view on this subject - please log on to www.renewedheartministries.com and listen to "Jekly and Hyde"
and "When Love Burns" by Herb Montgomery

God Bless.
Santhosh
India.

Stacie:

This really has nothing to do with us being friends it is simply a discussion, how I see reality and how you see reality. From there it moves to what is the reality in the SDA church. The facts are that EGW acceptance as a prophet has for a long time been a requirement for leadership positions in the SDA church whether that position has anything to do with dealing with EGW or not. For a long time I have said that if a person really believes EGW purpose was to point to the Bible and I use the Bible as my standard it should not matter one bit to them if I don't accept EGW. So the problem in the SDA church is not those of use who can accept EGW as any other Christian writer. It is those who say you must accept her as a prophetic authority. The just a lesser light to lead us to the Bible is merely a ruse they use to try and head off the cult charge that was once often used against SDA's. Because if they were serious about that then they would have no problem with Biblical based differences with EGW's views or scientific differences or historical differences. But as we can see reality is far different from what some people claim.

As to HS.com of course no one said that to me. But when I was accused of being mean for asking a question a very specific question of Mark and not getting an answer and I replied as part of my post "thanks for nothing" that hardly strikes as reasonably a of lack of civility. Pretty mild compared to some of Marco's rants of which I was the subject of when I first started posting there. He did apologize after a while though. Also mentioned that he had never banned anyone, I wonder was I and Bob Sands the first to be banned.

The funny think is I am more in agreement with your group then most SDA's same for Conversations about God which also effectively banned me and Elaine at the same time. Supposedly under the reason for us to take a hiatus so the less vocal people could post. You can see how silly such excuses are in the internet discussion world but people still practice such deceptive techniques. Anyway after 3-4 years when someone on CAG posted a reference to one of my articles I asked if I could rejoin and Alan said no. Obviously that one was not over EGW as Alan was not too sure about her then anyway.

So the problem is not that you accept Ellen White as a prophet and I don't. The problem is what does the church do to those who don't accept EGW as a prophetic authority as our fundamental belief states. (how such a belief can even be in a Bible based fundamentals is amazing to me but that is another issue).

Ron

Ron,

You ask, "What does the church do with those who do not accept EGW as a prophetic authority."

If you and I make up the church - and you don't accept her as authority - then is it not fair to say that part of the SDA church does not accept EGW as a prophetic authority? You are proof of that.

By the way, the GC is NOT a unique message to EGW - in fact, the more I study the more I see it elsewhere in the secular domain as well as in other religions. EGW is but one source.

And finally, if I make a point to devote a website or blog roasting my "church" (that I am part of) claiming persecution, taking names and kicking bottom - odds are high that I will not be taken seriously. Points and progress really can be made without violent & abusive communication. (violent meaning to use blame and accusation). And I personally apologize if my posts have been accusatory or blameful - that is not what I want to communicate.

If you'd like to carry on this conversation more, why not email me at stacie@heavenlysanctuary.com We are turning this thread into something it should not be.

Peace to you...

-S

"And finally, if I make a point to devote a website or blog roasting my "church" (that I am part of) claiming persecution, taking names and kicking bottom - odds are high that I will not be taken seriously. Points and progress really can be made without violent & abusive communication. (violent meaning to use blame and accusation). And I personally apologize if my posts have been accusatory or blameful - that is not what I want to communicate."

___________________________________________________________

Sounds an awful like a child that somehow hasn't gotten his way frankly.

David Moorman,

i didn't quite understand what you meant refering to stacie's comment.

David,

I'm not sure of your comment, care to clarify?

Another author addressing the subject of the Character of God and whether he kills:
http://www.truthinjesus.org/books/book.php?id=c2001

I am so very grateful for the many who have been helpful to me in my journey. While they would probably find it strange to be in this list with some of the others, it is so clear to me that each was a preparation for me as I journeyed. You can find the story of my journey at www.ohmygodonline.com/farewell. As I say there, it is my journey; not your journey. You cannot take my journey and I cannot take yours. But what I increasingly sense is that this CoG message which is discovered by those not connected with others I have found to be part of a beautiful montage that paints a wonderful picture of my heavenly Father none of which could have painted alone. I see these thinkers, authors, each forming a tiny rivulet which are running together and which will form a mighty, irrestible river of Life from the Lifegiver which will sweep across the planet. Whatever else we may argue about, we cannot argue that we are not still on planet Earth. THat is a powerful statement about our past.
THanx Maxwell, Thompson, Bradford, Tyner, Eldredge, Cinquemani, Gibson, Wieland, Punt, Campbell, Douglin...oh, my, memory fails, but most of all, thank God! He who has begun a good work, is faithful to complete it!
blessings, all!

"Now the point is - God in love is just stopping the sinner. God is not intimidating the sinner with pain, and imposed suffocation from him, God is concerned about the DEATH, the eternal seperation from him." - Santosh.

Then that means God doesn't believe in free will. If He has to stop the sinner from hurting himself, then He is using force. Gods love never uses force. You are mixing in your human love with Gods unconditional love.

For those not familiar with him, I would encourage you to read the writings of Alden Thompson, as they have been a wonderful blessing to me through the years. He has addressed many of the issues raised above. He can be viewed as a speaker in the GNT; his answers in the speakers panel are worth watching.

His books include: "Inspiration", "Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God", and "Escape From the Flames" ( dealing with the growth of Ellen White in her writings)

Thank you Good News Tour for including him on your panel, and for placing the character of God front and center.

Jason,

The stories of the flood and fire shows that God did stop
the sinner from hurting himself and others, also the story of God tealling Saul to destroy all the Amalakites, tells us that he stops people when their have become chronic. The stories of Achan, Herod etc...all tell us something about it.

I did not call that force, i think i suggested mercy killing, and i don't know if that involves force, because all that God does is in love for others.

I believe God put many people to sleep throughout history
and i believe God is live did justice(the right thing), whether to call it force or not i don't know, cause it seems like that's violating freewill. I think there is an answer for that, but i don't know it, and if you know kindly do share it or if not, we need to get to heaven where God will explain it to us.

Furthermore, the second death i believe will not be imposed by God by fire or anything, but the sinner dies ashe encounter God's glory and revelation as mentioned in Desire of Ages.

I've come from a mixed up background of ideas and concepts of God, so if i make a mistake, forgive me and feel free to correct me.

God Bless
Santhosh.

"Truth will stand any investigation".

"Are we truth seekers or truth protectors."

"Life is a perception"

"life is an expereince to be lived not a problem to be solved". Knowledge is a product of this expereince and life ( eternal life ) choices come at the end of the expereince NOt at the age of 12 or 30!

"The JOY is in the journey not in the arrival"

A quote from: "Behold your God by F.T. Wright-

"There are three facts common to all men.

The first is that we have, either conciously or subconciously, a definite opinion about the character of god. Even though little thought may have been given to the topic, it is true nontheless.

The second is that our attitude toward God, our treatment of others, and our receptivity of truth are determined by these opnions.

The third is that all of us were born predispostioned to have a false concept of God which in turn has been confirmed and extended by environmental educational influences. Unless delivered from this and initiated into a true knowledge of God , it will be impossible to enter into a full and joyful christian expereince-----."

In point of fact isn't this what the Great Controvesy is all about?

John 17: 3 says "eternal life is to know God and verses 5-6 say that is why Jesus came--- to reveal God to us.

Sin is by biblical defintion seperation from God. 1st John says "sin is the transgression of the law ( the law is the very Character of God . Transgression means to move away from something ( IE seperation )

Jeremiah 2:13 " My people have commited two sins, They have forsaken ( seperated themselves ) from me ------."

In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve fled from God in fear based on the lies of satan ( or their own perceptions )- ( IE seperated themselves from God )

Man has been fleeing from a LOVING God ever since because they misundertood his method of dealing with sin as seperation.

"Exclusive emphasis in a society on LAW ENFORCEMNT rather than on a sensible balance of remedial action and enforcement tends to lead to a decaying cycle in which resistence grows and becomes ever more violent.

"Forced obedience leads to the character of a rebel"

" violence begats more violence"

"By Beholding we become changed". 2nd corinthians 3:18 says " And we who with unveiled faces ( not confused minds ) all reflect the glory of the Lord ( Glory is character Exodus 39:19 ) are being transformed ( changed ) into his likeness with ever increasing glory ( good character ) which comes from the lord----."

1st Corinthians 34 Says" come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning: ( seperating yourselves from God ) for there are some who are ignorant of GOD, I say this to your shame.

The ONLY cure for SIN is to reconcile.

If God through the revelation of himself in and through Jesus the Christ cannot reconcile ALL his children he fails and SEPERATION which is sin then wins.

"LOVE never fails" Will GOD fail in his revelation of himself and thus SAVE all HUMANKIND?

Heavy stuff moving from the MILK of the word to the MEAT of the word.

Hebrews Says 4:16 Let us approach the throne of God with BOLDNESS so that we may recieve mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Hebrews 6 : 1 Therefore lets us leave behind the basic teachings of about Christ and move on to MATURITY , not laying again the foundations of repentance ( changeing ones mind about the Charater of God )From acts that lead to death ( seperation from GOD ) and of faith ( trust in his Character of love to heal ALL humnakinds minds ) ------- "

HE can do it and so can we if we learn to trust HIM.

Sincerely
Jay Rasco

"all of us were born predispostioned to have a false concept of God."

There is not one scintilla of evidence to support such a fallacious statement. All babies must be taught everything they know. They have no concept of God. It has to be given them. IOW, a baby born to Islamic parents will most assuredly have a concept of Allah; if the baby is born to Jewish parents, he will have a different concept than if born to Christians. And if born in India, the baby will most likely have a concept of Buddhism or Hinduism. Everything we know we must be taught, or learn gradually throughout life.

It's a concept that says a baby will be born speaking Chinese or English---not!

Elaine: I appreciate your response. Biblicaly Speaking "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" What does that mean?

Scripture I quote suggests that "sin is separation" from GOD. Ignorance of GOD.

Wrights comment was that "environmental and education influences" continue that erronious perception.

That would certainly be in harmony with your comments.

Is that the final conclusion or is it the beginning of a further search for "TRUTH" That was/is the purpose of my comments.

"What is truth"

Other comments were that life is a "perception"

F.T. Wright certainly has a basic premise here of his own. It may not make sense to those of another "perception"

Is it possible that "God" is a word used to describe our "perceptions"

Allah is a Muslim word for GOD. Is Buddha a symbol (word) used to describe someones GOD?

Words are simply "labels' for idea's. Words are symbols for idea's.

What does the concept of "unto the third and fourth generation suggest." Is the child developing a concept while still in the womb? Is it effected by its Mother and Fathers thoughts, deeds and actions.

It is rather easy to label someone elses "perceptions" as fallacious without knowing some of their basic premises.

The traditonal Israelites also labeled Jesus veiw as "of the Devil" because they found his teachings so far removed from their "preconceived idea's" many of which were learned in the "School of the prophets."

trancendant comments welcomed! Even encouraged!

In Jesus comments in John 16:25 HE says: Though I have been speaking figuritively, ( dark speech " a time is coming when I will no longer
use this kind of language but will tell you plainly-------.

EGW says somewhere in her writings that Jesus was "saddened by the slowness of his disciples comprehension." I wonder if we are farther along than they were?

Jay

Does God kill. Would he use toture?

"TortureCowardice Among 'Christian' Leaders: Why the Churches Are Largely Mum on it.

By Ray McGovern, Consortium News. Posted August 1, 2009.

Who but the cowardly crew leading the "Christian" churches can be held responsible for the fact that many of their flock believe in torture?

Anyone harboring doubts that the institutional Church is riding shotgun for the system, even regarding heinous sin like torture, should be chastened by the results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center.

Who but the cowardly crew leading the "Christian" churches can be held responsible for the fact that many of their flock believe torture of suspected terrorists is "justified?"

Those polled were white non-Hispanic Catholics, white Evangelicals, and white mainline Protestants. A majority (54 percent) of those who attend church regularly said torture could be "justified," while a majority of those not attending church regularly responded that torture was rarely or never justified.

I am not a psychologist or sociologist. But I recall that one of the first things Hitler did on assuming power was to ensure there was a pastor in every Lutheran and Catholic parish in Germany. Why? Because he calculated, correctly, that here would be a force for stability for his regime.

Thus began another horrid chapter in the history of those professing to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth but had forgotten his repeated admonition, Do not be afraid.

A mere seven decades after the utter failure of church leaders in Germany, their current American counterparts have again yielded to fear, and have condoned evils like torture by their deafening silence.

What kinds of folks comprise this 54 percent? An informal "survey" of my friends suggests these are "my-country-first" people -- like the fellow who recently gave me the finger when he saw my bumper sticker, which simply says "God bless the rest of the world too."

They are people accustomed to hierarchy and comfortable being told what they should think and do to preserve "our way of life."

They place a premium on nationalism, which they call patriotism, and on what the Germans call Ordnung. I suppose that this may be part of why they go to church on Sunday.

It's a problem that has existed for almost 1,700 years, ever since 4th Century Christians jettisoned there heritage of non-violent resistance to war and threw in their lot with Constantine.

Subservience

Nowhere is the phenomenon of obeisance to hierarchical power highlighted more clearly than in the Grand Inquisitor story in Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who could plum the human heart as few others.

In the tale, Dostoevsky has Jesus joining the "tortured, suffering people" of Seville during the Inquisition. The Cardinal of Seville immediately jails and interrogates Jesus, telling him that the Church has "corrected" his big mistake.

Rather than donning "Caesar's purple," Jesus gave us freedom of conscience.

While it has been 130 years since he wrote Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky captures the trap into which so many American "believers" have fallen in forfeiting freedom through fear. His portrayal of Inquisition reality brings us to the brink of the moral precipice on which our country teeters today.

It is as though he knew what would be in store for us as fear was artificially stoked after the attacks of 9/11.

Here is how the cardinal ridicules Christ for imposing on humans the heavy burden of freedom of conscience:

"Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? ... We teach them that it's not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience. ... In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient. ... We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. ... We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission."

Recently, prominent Baptist layman and distinguished senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, gave a hat-tip to the Inquisition. At a May 13 Senate hearing discussing interrogation techniques like waterboarding, Graham explained that, "One of the reasons these techniques have been used for about 500 years is that they work."

I was reminded of one of the things Gandhi said about Christians: "Everyone in the world knows that Jesus and his teachings were non-violent except Christians."

And the reason that regular churchgoers don't seem to know this is because the historical Jesus is not preached.

My guess is that those who go to church on Sunday expect a modicum of moral leadership. If the pastor is silent on torture, then torture must somehow be okay. How easy it is then to cede one's conscience to an American-flag-draped pulpit.

Jesus (and Luther) Didn't Really Mean It?

A progressive Lutheran pastor in Dallas asked me to give a talk to his parish on the issues I had been addressing in my writings. It struck me that since George W. Bush had moved into their neighborhood, I might ask the congregants how they thought they should relate to someone who had given written approval to torture.

I was too clever by half -- actually, naïve. I would show them the "smoking gun" memorandum signed by George W. Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, which the Senate Armed Forces Committee has determined "opened the way" to all manner of detainee abuse, and then I would challenge them by quoting Martin Luther who, after all, was one of their guys.

I chose this passage cited by George Hunsinger in an essay he wrote in 1987 (appearing in his book Disruptive Grace):

"If," wrote Martin Luther, "I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of Gods except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield, except there, is mere flight and disgrace if one flinches at that point."

Hunsinger emphasizes that faithfulness to Jesus of Nazareth is always situational, that one can spout impeccably orthodox theological truths and still be "fatally disloyal."

Genuine loyalty is proven where it counts -- in the pitch of battle, where it really costs something. Writing 22 years ago, Hunsinger was already addressing what he called "an overwhelming spiritual collapse, in which we have lost touch with even minimal standards of morality."

"The prevailing sense seems to be that, if the demands of biblical morality contradict the dictates of national security, so much the worse for biblical morality. … Dungeons … torture, and death are described as belonging to the free world. … War criminals in high places we honor. … Acts of aggression we celebrate as noble deeds. … of preemptive self-defense. Orwell has become our destiny. …

"The passive acquiescence of a Christian community which has lost its moral conscience in matters of state contributes substantially … to misery and oppression. … ‘Seek your own welfare above all else' has become the maxim of the day."

Hunsinger has earned the right to criticize those who confess Jesus of Nazareth "from the safety of some remote enclave, where confession may be true but costs nothing."

He is professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, but was so aghast at U.S. practice of torture that he devoted untold time and energy to founding the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT).

Luther Not Popular in Dallas

I suggested to the gathering of Lutherans that Dallas, where the "decider" on torture is now their neighbor, might be where the battle rages for them. I had very few takers.

"But he kept us safe … isn't it better to fight the terrorists over there than to fight them here?"

There was little appetite to listening to THAT Luther in that Lutheran church. The pastor shared with me later that he had encountered all manner of criticism for having invited someone disrespectful of George W. Bush.

Despite the turbulence I caused, the pastor thanked me for coming, but noted that "torture is not high on anyone's agenda."

In a brief thank-you note he wrote, "I believe that if the full scope of the nation's use of torture comes to light, there may be need for churches to propose confession and repentance, as a positive witness for the rest of the world."

Presbyterians: To their credit, the Presbyterians have been more outspoken -- some of them at least.

In 2006, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) called on Congress to convene an independent investigative body to establish responsibility for the abuse of detainees and, if appropriate, to recommend the appointment of a special prosecutor.

The clerk of the General Assembly followed up on April 23, 2009, with an appeal to President Barack Obama to work with Congress to establish a non-partisan Commission of Inquiry to bring "an understanding of what happened, how it happened, and who was accountable," adding"

"If those responsible are not held accountable, nothing beyond wishful thinking and admonitions exists to compel future leaders to resist the temptation to torture in times of fear or threat."

Good for the Presbyterians, I thought. I led off a Sunday evening talk to a Dallas area Presbyterian congregation by complementing those assembled on the gutsy appeal of April 23. I was greeted by blank stares.

This congregation was no exception to the general rule that courageous statements at high official levels do not find their way into Sunday sermons, much less workshops. A disappointment, but hardly a surprise.

Methodists: The United Methodist General Board of Churches and Society, acknowledging the results of the Pew survey, is also supporting an independent inquiry into torture.

Top executive Jim Winkler has been very direct: "Shame, shame, shame on any Christian who could imagine there is any justification of torture against another human being. I cannot conceive in my wildest dreams of Jesus Christ giving any blessing to torture."

It is another question, of course, as to whether Pew reaches the pews.

As for the Dallas Methodists, Southern Methodist University has shown itself eager to host George W. Bush's presidential library and an independent institute to sponsor programs to "promote the vision of the president and celebrate" his presidency.

The protests of thousands of Methodists, including prominent alumni of SMU's School of Theology pointing to the policy of torture, fell on the deaf ears of the Methodist bishops and trustees who blessed the enterprise.

Catholics: Sadly, the U.S. Catholic bishops cannot find their voice on torture. This is history repeating itself, for Hamlet-like Pope Pius XII kept trying to make up his mind on whether he should put the Church at some risk in Germany, while Jews and other minorities were been tortured and murdered.

In 1948, the French author/philosopher Albert Camus addressed a Dominican monastery of friars who had asked what an "unbeliever" thought about Christians in the light of their behavior during the 30s and 40s. Camus said:

"For a long time during those frightful years I waited for a great voice to speak up in Rome. I, an unbeliever? Precisely. For I knew that the spirit would be lost if it did not utter a cry of condemnation. …

"It has been explained to me since that the condemnation was indeed voiced. But that it was in the style of encyclicals, which is not all that clear. The condemnation was voiced and it was not understood. Who could fail to see where the fault lies in this case?

"Christians should voice their condemnation loud and clear, in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest person. … They should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today."

And today? True to form, laudable statements and papers have been produced and placed in in-boxes in the bowels of the bishops' bureaucracy, but they rarely find their way to the pulpit on Sunday.

I am a Catholic, and initially was happy to find, by a search of the bishops' Web site that there is a Catholic Study Guide titled "Torture is a Moral Issue." It was developed in collaboration with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, the group Professor Hunsinger founded.

This was news to me. Had any of my Catholic friends heard of this? The answer from a representative sampling, including progressive parishes, was No.

So I called the bishops' staff to inquire as to why the study guide on torture had not been published and made available to pastors to use in their preaching or workshops.

I was told that it was "not designed as a publication, because there was uncertainty as to how much demand there would be for such a study."

A publishing run would not be cost effective unless it produced at least a thousand copies and this particular issue might not warrant that kind of run. (There are 70 million Catholics in this land.)

As for Pope Benedict XVI, he arrived here in April 2008, a week after media reports that the most senior officials of the Bush administration had met regularly at the White House to plan which torture techniques might be most appropriate for which high-value detainees. He said nothing.

All the more strange, it would seem, since Jesus of Nazareth, after all, was tortured to death. If the pope had an opinion on torture, he kept it to himself.

Mormons: What about the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints?

My small random sampling of the information available shows a strong propensity among Mormons toward Dostoevsky's caricature of a strong, top-down authoritative church, but with the notable exception of at least one person who could, and did, think for herself -- to her own peril.

The most prominent Mormon with torture connections is Jay Bybee, a devout Mormon with undergraduate and law degrees from Mormon-owned Brigham Young University.

As leader of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in August 2002, Bybee approved a memorandum indicating that interrogators could apply virtually any harsh techniques, so long as the pain involved was less than that accompanying "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death."

In my view, his memorandum must surely be the most shameful text ever to appear beneath Department of Justice letterhead. It was among the ones released by President Obama in mid-April, over the strong objections of many top officials.

A lively debate rages among Mormon lawyers over the morality of Bybee's approval of harsh interrogation techniques. Dan Burke, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, was incensed to learn that a fellow Mormon could justify such actions.

"I cannot believe that the practice of torture is acceptable to anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus Christ," said Burk.

Not so fast, say other Mormon lawyers -- David Wenger of New York, for example.

"I would personally be uncomfortable writing a memo on how the administration could legally justify torture of people, but I don't think it's against the tenets of our faith," Wenger told the Salt Lake Tribune.

"One might believe that the value of ready access to torture-obtained intelligence outweighed the negative," said Wenger.

Yet another Mormon, a woman Army specialist named Alyssa Peterson, was clear on the morality of torture. She refused to take part in applying torture techniques approved by Bybee.

She walked away from an interrogation in the "cage," where Iraqis were stripped naked in front of female soldiers, mocked and burned with cigarettes. Three days later, on Sept. 15, 2003, Peterson was found dead of a gunshot wound at Tal Afar base in Iraq. The Army said her death was a suicide.

It gets worse. The two faux-psychologists to whom the CIA turned to show them how to torture, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, are both Mormons, and were widely referred to by other U.S. interrogators as the "Mormon mafia."

Add to the mix Robert Walpole, the CIA analyst who wove out of whole cloth what has been referred to as "The Whore of Babylon" -- the worst National Intelligence Estimate in the history of U.S. intelligence.

"Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction" dated Oct. 1, 2002, was a deliberate -- and successful -- attempt to deceive Congress into authorizing war on Iraq.

In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, former CIA Director George (slam-dunk) Tenet praises Walpole as a "brilliant analyst." In a transparent attempt to defend Walpole against charges of being "hell bent on war," Tenet insists that Walpole is "one of the most unlikely people to be accused of being a war hawk."

Tenet notes that Walpole did not think an attack on Iraq justifiable – and Tenet adds that Walpole is a Mormon bishop. Did Tenet think that that should do it, as far as credibility was concerned? In any event, Walpole did what he was told in managing the production of the Estimate that paved the way to war.

I know there are many Mormons besides Alyssa Peterson with integrity. It remains a mystery to me why so many of the ones who gain prominence seem to lose their sense of right and wrong when they are asked by hierarchical authority to do things they know are wrong.

In sum, with respect to the Christian churches I believe author Chris Hedges summarizes the situation neatly, if sadly:

"The utter failure of nearly all our religious institutions -- whose texts are unequivocal about murder -- to address the essence of war has rendered them useless. These institutions have little or nothing to say in wartime because the god they worship is a false god, one that promises victory to those who obey the law and believe in the manifest destiny of the nation."

The Good News

Who would have thought we would have to turn to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry the moral ball on torture.

Adm. Mike Mullen has called his commanders on the carpet. He is reliably reported to have been so "appalled" and "disgusted" after viewing some of the abuse photos being kept under wraps by the Obama administration that he warned senior military officers on July 10: "We haven't all absorbed or applied all the lessons of Abu Ghraib."

Mullen ordered that more be done to halt detainee abuse. He is quoted as saying, "We're better than this; and now we have to show it."

Hopefully, Adm. Mullen will stay around long enough to start a thorough clean-up of the torture mess -- at least in the military.

He has acted responsibly and with integrity on a number of issues; the country is lucky to have him in that very senior post. For it is clear that, as long as demagogues keep insisting that we are "at war" with global terrorists all manner of abuse can be heaped on "the enemy."

It's always the same "during wartime." Here's what one widely admired U.S. general had to say about the German enemy during WWII. It is an attitude about which we must be aware, so that we can guard against it:

"My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against," said General George Patton. "We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. …

"Don't worry; I can assure you that you'll do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do."

Waiting for the Church?

Don't wait for the churches to speak out against such violence. We have seen enough of their vacillation to know that, for us, this would be a cop-out.

Sad to say, the same challenge facing Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero before he was assassinated faces us. And we must have the courage and honesty to act, like him, in putting ourselves where the battle rages:

"A church that doesn't provoke any crisis, a gospel that doesn't unsettle, a word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin, a word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of the society in which it is being proclaimed, what kind of gospel is that?"

We cannot avoid the challenge; it is up to us. We have to supply what is lacking in the institutional church.

There is hope. As St. Augustine warned 1,600 years ago:

"Hope has two children. The first is anger at the way things are. The second is courage to do something about it."

With those two, well, yes we can."

On Whether God kills or not.

I have been studying this topic for many years and I have finally put it to rest for myself. In my research on the "wrath of God" and whether he kills is no longer a problem for me. I believe that God is the one being judged on that very topic. I believe it is his objective to show that he can govern his universe based on love and trust ( faith that is not a leap in the dark ) alone. I think it is satans obective to prove that God can't do that.

If God has to use force and killing to prevent satan from winning the war then why not just kill satan to start with?

We as adventist say that because that would only generate more fear and doubt about the way God runs his government and I believe that to kill his children does exactly that.

The big conflict in adventism is whether the war is about LAW and Legalism (IE forensics )or if it is a matter of relationship and love and trust.

One of the great difficulties we have is in our concept and definition of the word Justice. We define it as "getting what we deserve. Peter Gabel defines it as " Justice is the healing of the broken trust relationship between God and his creatures." Justice as the former has no real objective but to leave a segment of Gods children seperated from HIM, which is what sin, is and leads to further rebellion. Justice as healing satisfies the demands of both mercy and justice as defined in the latter.

"Mission accomplished."

Healing is Gods way of exposing and correcting the sin problem. SIN is seperation from god who is the creator, reedmer, reconciler, the great physician. The question is do WE trust HIM as the meek and mild one to accomplish this without the use of force? that is why Jesus came accoring to John 17:1-4,5,6

The fourth sentence in the following comment from EGW in "desire of ages" says it all for me.

"The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This COULD NOT BE DONE BY FORCE. The exercise of FORCE is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in CONTRAST to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal." 4:2.

Once the topic of "Gods wrath" is explained and grasped in Romans 1:18 through 26 ( IE "gave them over" ) and in Romans 4:25 ( "he was delivered over" ) it is found in many places even in the old testament as well.

But HE "Never leaves us or forsakes us" so it is the darkness of our own minds that leads us to believe that God has forsaken us. " it is the god of this earth that has darkened our minds " Remember when, on the cross, Jesus FELT that God had abandoned him? The darkness of rejection in the human mind plays strange tricks on our thinking. Rejection or abandonmentis the the worst form of ABUSE that either child or adult can go through.

Ther is much to this study and concept of "Gods Wrath" which we liken to mankinds wrath. Have we created a GOD in our own image?

Sincerely

Jay

This is my goal in my limited efforts to find a common denominator, concept and purpose within Adventism that will encourage us to work together toward that goal. "A house divided cannot stand." If we as Adventists cannot agree on the issues and principles in the "Great Controversy" how will ever accomplish our purpose?

Will we cease to exist?

The god of this world Comment in my previous post is from 2nd cor 4:4. "New International Version (©1984)
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Verse 6 goes on to say:
New International Version (©1984)
"For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Paul also says in 1st Cor 1:33 "Do not be misled, Bad company corrupts bad character ( by beholding we become changed ) and verse 34: Come back to your senses as you ought and stop sinning (being seperated from God that causes bad behaviour.)

I am trying to establish a thread in my posts that when seen in their broad scope will hopefully clarify those issue's.

I am not a theologian who was educatedin the "School of the Prophets, just a lay person trying to make sense of the conflict and itsd issues!

sincerely
Jay

God Kills: A Review of "The Character of God Controversy":

I find myself in harmonmy with Ellen White on this topic and my purpose is the same as hers and my experience is very similar to hers on "The character of God." I would put God Kills in the same category as Hell.

“Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness. Delight yourself also in the Lord, and he shall give you the desires of your heart” (Ps. 37:3, 4).

"Ellen White’s primary emphasis in life, born out of her own experience and amplified in her visions, was to obtain and portray an accurate picture of God’s character. She saw correctly that the great religious divisions throughout time and especially those within Christendom developed out of an inadequate understanding of God."

Spiritual Awareness

[Top of Document]

In her early life, she was a victim of prevailing errors that permeated various churches within Protestantism. For example, misunderstanding the character of God—and thus the plan of salvation—was at the bottom of her teen-age confusion “concerning justification and sanctification.”1

Further, because she had been taught that God’s sovereignty and justice were Christianity’s central themes, she had little peace and almost a total unawareness of a friendly God.2

The doctrine of eternal punishment, a product of Calvinistic thinking that focused on God’s sovereignty at the expense of human responsibility, unloaded a profound anguish on young Ellen, as it does on anyone who wonders about a God who would punish sinners forever.3

A clearly focused theology. When divine light helped her to read the Bible without being driven by the prevailing misconceptions that dominated contemporary churches, the truth about God became increasingly clear. Her writings soon focused on the main question in the great controversy between God and Satan—what is God really like?4 Who can be trusted—God or Satan?

A clear picture of God’s character. Along with a focused theology that captured the main theme of the Bible came a fresh, captivating picture of God that charmed her into a deep, dynamic relationship with her loving and gracious friendly Lord.5

During the third European Missionary Council in Basel, Switzerland, September 22, 1885, she gave one of her typical talks to workers: “I feel so thankful this morning that we can commit the keeping of our souls to God as unto a faithful Creator. Sometimes the enemy presses me the hardest with his temptations and darkness when I am about to speak to the people. I have such a sense of weakness that it seems like an impossibility to stand before the congregation. But if I should give up to feelings, and say that I could not speak, the enemy would gain the victory. I dare not do this. I move right forward, take my place in the desk, and say, ‘Jesus, I hang my helpless soul on Thee; Thou wilt not suffer me to be brought to confusion,’ and the Lord gives me the victory. . . . Oh, that I could impress upon all the importance of exercising faith moment by moment, and hour by hour! . . . If we believe in God, we are armed with the righteousness of Christ; we have taken hold of His strength. . . . We want to talk with our Saviour as though He were right by our side.”6

See referance above for more--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread can lead too much more on the Topics of "Gods Wrath", "Gods Character" and how it is administered and how MANS perception distorts the "principles" of life/love/God.

Jay

"All that mankind can know about God is based on human culture"

"Life is a perception"

"Life is also an experience to be lived and living is a learning process."

Eckhart Tolle, "Words, no matter whether they are vocalized and made into sounds or remain unspoken as thoughts, cast an almost hypnotic spell upon you. You easily lose yourself in them, become hypnotized into implicitly believing that when you have attached a word to something, you know what it is. The fact is: You don't know what it is. You have only covered up the mystery with a label. Everything, a bird, a tree, even a simple stone, and certainly a human being, is ultimately unknowable." - E Tolle. A New Earth

A new way of seeing justice by Peter Gabel and MLK: Justice is the healing of the broken trust relationship between the creator and all creatures."

"Justice is Love healing that which rejects Love"
MLK

A different veiw of a prophet: ""A Prophet is not someone who can foretell the future but someone who can recognize and articulate the moral event's that determine the future"