I think it's possible for God to burn people up in literal fire and destroy them-- and to cause them to be punished according to the deeds done in the body-- because, first, the Bible says He will do it, and secondly, because I believe it is right for him to do it. I believe it is consistent with His holy, just, loving, merciful character as the Creator, Lawgiver, Redeemer and Judge of the whole universe. This is shown in what God has done and said throughout the entire Bible. I believe the Holy Spirit has convicted me though the study of the Scriptures and the Spirit of prophecy that this is what God will do. I have no doubt of it. I'm 100% certain, as certain as I am that God exists and that Christ is my Savior and the Savior of the world. The Bible and the Spirit of prophecy don't speak out of both sides of their mouth.

I believe the reason you have a hard time with this concept is that you evidently don't consider what Ellen White said-- that "God can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice." 12 MR 209

On the basis of the above paragraph, as well as many things the Bibles says, what you ask about other humans is not relevant to the question. God is not a man, and man has no right to do what God has every righ to do. As Ellen White says, "God has unlimited control over the works of His hands." See 4 SG 50



My answer:

Because what people do and what God does are two different things. God is not a creature but is the Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge of the universe.

The following paragraph bears repeating in this connection: "God can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice." 12 MR 209

On the basis of the above paragraph, as well as many things the Bibles says, what you ask about other humans is not relevant to the question. God is not a man, and man has no right to do what God has every right to do "in strict justice." As Ellen White says, "God has unlimited control over the works of His hands." See 4 SG 50

Please be sure to read all of 4 SG 50-53.

Let me know if you would like me to clarify anything here. I'll be glad to do it. :-)

Good point. In matters of faith and salvation the minority are usually right. However, sometimes the majority are right. For example, the majority of SDAs believe Jesus is Lord and Savior. They also believe the seventh-day is the Sabbath. They also believe in soul sleep. So, what makes a particular belief right? I suspect we'd all agree the testimony of Jesus is what makes it right. It's not a numbers game.

Nothing sacred about the majority. No one is saying the majority is necessarily right. Truth isn't determined by majority vote. But then it isn't determined by a minority vote, either.

100% of what? He said, "I'm not 100% certian that Jesus will not directly cause the wicked to die"?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. The original post was written to Robert, who tells us regarding Ellen White's writings that he accepts "the good" and "throws out" the bad. He encourages others to do the same. Thereore I am not making an accussation; I'm talking about something that the person not only admits to but says others ought to do as well.

But Ellen White said people should not treat her writings in this way. It's the same way that many people treat the Bible. We shouldn't pick and choose what to accept and what to throw out. I don't believe that I pick and choose what to accept and what to reject of her writings. I believe all of it, just as I do the Bible. All of it must be taken into account, and there is no subject where this is more important to practice than in the present topic of discussion.

If you believe that I am doing this, please copy and paste where you think I've done it, and please also give the post# and the title of the thread.

You think it's right to punish people by setting them on fire? Most people would consider this a hideous thing to do. What is it in your background or experience that would lead you to think that setting people on fire as a form of punishment is OK?



You have no doubt that God will torture people. That's too bad. I hope the impact of that conviction is minimized as far as is possible in your personal life.



I have a hard time with the concept that God will torture people because I believe what Jesus Christ said: "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

I have no idea how you could consider the life, character and teachings of Jesus Christ, and believe that He would set people on fire to torture them. I don't think Ellen White was trying to convince people that God would torture people. I read the following:



She seems to have the same aversion to torture that I have.

It's really hard for me to take seriously the idea that God will torture people. God is moral. Cruelty is Satanic. This is really a very simply thing.



So God can act immorally because He's not a human being? Or torture is not immoral as long as God is doing it?

Why do you think God would prefer to torture people, and use such a painful method of torture, as opposed to a more humane method of punishment? The only reason I can think of is to make really clear that if you disobey Him, He will do something really, really terrible to you. YOU BETTER do what He says, or He will use His power to cause you such pain as can't even imagine, for hours and hours, or days and days.

Given this idea, how can you maintain that God does not use compelling power to coerce the will? Surely if I threaten to torture you for hours or days, I'm using compelling power to influence your will, right?



Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to respond. I put in bold the questions I'm particularly interested in.

Also I still don't understand why you think God would be capable of torturing people. You say you could reject that a loved one, such as your father/brother/son that you know well, would torture someone, but not that God would. So, unless you see torturing someone as a morally superior activity, it seems like you're ascribing a higher level of morality to your brother/father/son than you are to God. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Unless you don't see torture as being morally repugnant. Maybe this is the source of our disagreement. Perhaps you don't see torture as being cruel(?). I'm really having trouble understanding why you think it's OK for one to act in such a manner. I don't see why being God should allow one to do cruel, inhumane things. It seems to me that being God would make One less likely to do such things, not more.

I also serve God imperfectly because of His love for me.

Not because of fear of fire...

Mark

Are you sure that does not say:

Fire appeared to come down from God from heaven, but it was really a new super weapon that satan and fallen mankind released on themselves accidently, and devoured them.

???

Add another...

Have you counted me yet?