Other than this means that the righteous will determine how long a person should be set on fire? You really think this is the only possible way to interpret this?



Before I comment, I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. I'm understanding you to say that the only possible way that you see to interpret what Ellen White wrote is that the righteous will determine for how long a period the wicked should be set on fire?



This implies you perceiving setting people on fire to be a fair thing to do.



This implies you believe that a jury of their peers also view setting them on fire a fair thing to do.



Ok, the saints will be humble in determining how long their family members, (spouse, children, parents) should be set on fire. I don't see how your comment in regards to mercy applies here. Isn't your idea that the righteous will determine, by looking at the evidence, exactly how long those being examined should be set on fire for? Mercy implies they recommend being set on fire for less time than the evidence indicates. But this isn't what you think, is it? Don't you think they should be set on fire for exactly the amount of time the evidence indicates? So what you're really advocating is (what you perceive to be) justice without mercy, isn't it?

I note you didn't answer my questions. I'll repeat them and answer them in accordance to my understanding what you think the correct answers are:

Q.You interpret this to mean that you will be sitting on judgment on people, presumably people you know, so loved ones and friends, and deciding for how long a period they should be set on fire?

A.Yes.

Q.So if you have, God forbid, some relative who is not among the blessed, your job will be to say, "I think my (fill in the blank; some family member or friend) should burn for X days"?

A.Yes.

Q.And you're OK with this?

A.Yes.

Q.And this is what you think God is like, that He would ask you to do something like this?

A.Yes.


Is this correct? You would answer each of these questions "yes"?

If God tortured the wicked mentally or physically, I would see this as cruel. I don't believe God does this. I believe all their suffering comes as a result of their own choice, and believe that DA 764 says precisely this.



The wicked suffer and die as a result of their own choice, not as a result of something God imposes upon them, either mentally or physically. This is DA 764.



The purpose of the judgment, or a purpose of the judgment, is to go through one's life point by point, and bring to light everything that happened in a person's life. Every wrong decision causes suffering. The more light there was, the more suffering there is. So a person who has committed more sin, and had more light, suffers more than a person who committed fewer sins and had less light.

My impression from previous comments that you have made on this subject is that you do not believe that God will set the wicked on fire (like a torch), supernaturally keeping them alive so that they can suffer excruciating pain. Is this correct?

You commented on how funny you thought what I wrote was (I guess because you saw it as absurd(?)), which leads me to comment on how funny I view this whole discussion to be. I cannot fathom how a Christian, a person who supposedly believes in Christ, could even for a moment entertain the idea that God would set someone on fire in order to make him/her suffer physical excruciating pain! How is this even possible to consider?

Now this is why, in regards to the conversation on the acts of violence attributed to God in the OT, that I have said to MM that I have felt time would be better spent discussing the judgment and the atonement. Surely a person who views as a viable possibility that God will set people on fire for many hours or many days, supernaturally keeping them alive so they can suffer more pain, couldn't see anything objectionable to the traditional views of the violent acts attributed to God in the OT.

Tom,

Do you agree that the above mentioned numbered points are factual?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree. Literal fire will be present, but whether or not it will play a part in why they suffer has not been made clear in the Bible or the SOP. What is clear, though, is that agonizing guilt will not cause them to suffer according their sinfulness and then end in death.

Do you agree one tiny sin would have been enough to cause A&E to die of emotional agony?

Do you agree Jesus required supernatural help to suffer and die on the cross?

Do you agree Jesus suffered for every sin ever committed in 6 hours on the cross?

If you agree with all three points, what do you disagree with? Please elaborate.

Please respond to my post.

My disagreement is with your interpretation of the numbered points, not the points themselves. In particular, I see nothing in the five points which would imply that the righteous will be deciding how long people should be set on fire, let alone this being the only possible interpretation.

You didn't address her point, namely, the idea God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain is hardly less objectionable. Otherwise, you are forced to say one sin is not enough to cause emotional agony ending in death.

GC, do you believe God will set the wicked "on fire"?

This is from "The Desire of Ages"



This brings out that Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race, and how the sense of sin broke His heart. I don't see how, given this, you could conclude that it's clear that the mental anguish which caused Christ's death, which is the anguish which the wicked will feel, won't cause their death.



The death was was ours is the death which Christ suffered, which is that spoken of above in the DA 753 quote. Christ suffered this death so we wouldn't have to. So, again, I don't see how you can say it's clear it isn't the case that the wicked will die the death Christ suffered when this says that Christ suffered that death.



No, with respect to "tiny sin."





I'm not sure what you're saying here. I believe Christ would have died in Gethsemane had not God sent an angel to strengthen Him. Are you saying something like this?



Not in the sense that you do.



I explained the first, and asked for clarification on the second one. Regarding the third one, I think you view Christ's suffering for every sin in the sense of each sin is equivalent to a certain amount of pain that must be inflicted, so that pain was inflicted to Christ, so it wouldn't have to be inflicted to us. I don't see that God inflicts anyone with pain to make them suffer for their sins, but that sin itself causes pain. Christ suffered for every sin because He took upon Him the sin of the world. So I do agree that Christ suffered for every sin, but not in an imposed sense of inflicted pain.

Yes I did. I said I don't believe this is what happens.



You're argument is that if it's not true that God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain then it must follow that one sin is not enough to cause emotional agony ending in death? This doesn't look like a valid argument.

In order for an argument to be valid, the premise must be true. If the premise is false, the argument isn't valid. Your premise is "God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain." I disagree with this premise, especially with the idea that God's purpose is that the wicked suffer unimaginable emotional pain. You also seem to be implying that God causes this pain, and if so, I disagree with that too.