You phrased it awkwardly I'd say. If you're going to ask a yes/no question, I think it works better to have a clear, explicit thought, so one it's clear what precisely one is agreeing with. So I split up the sentence to make clear what it is I agreed with.



If one says that God raises up the lost so they can experience X, that implies, or, at a minimum, can be read as implying, that it is God's will that the wicked experience X. I don't believe this is the case. That is, God does not will that the wicked suffer. They will suffer, but not because God desires them to.



You're talking about since he left heaven?



No, I've been saying that the wicked suffer as a result of their own choices.



I disagree with this. The wicked guarantee that they suffer and die by the choices they make. In so doing, they act contrary to God's will. God asks, "Why will you die?"



One could say a similar thing in regards to anyone who has sinned. Anyone who has sinned, should be dead. However, I tried to make clear that in speaking of God's supernaturally keeping people alive who have been set on fire, I was not speaking of this, but speaking of His intervening is a specific profess, that of burning, in such a way that the fire does not consume matter normally, but in a way that prolongs suffering. The whole point of the fire looks to be to cause the maximum amount of suffering, for some reason, presumably to make the wicked pay for what they have done.



EGW says both these things, right? So yes, I believe these. I don't understand the "but." She didn't say something contradictory, did she?


No. He would prefer to make them happy. (GC 541)



Yes.



No, this is wrong.



There's other things involved than simply God's desire on this point. It's certainly true that God would prefer to minimize their suffering.



I asked this question about 4 or 5 years ago, I think, which led to a topic (on another forum) which, to the best of my knowledge, is still going on, which is a long-winded way of saying this is a good question, but not one easily answered in a few words. However, I'll reiterate that God does not raise the wicked for the purpose of suffering. They suffer because of their own choices, choices which are contrary to God's will.



No, I don't believe this.



That's correct, if you're talking about literal fire. That is, I don't believe sin necessarily causes one to be set on fire.



This isn't a fair comparison. God did not supernaturally act to prevent the fire from acting normally. Therefore their nerve endings were destroyed in the fire. So they didn't suffer even the smallest of percentages of what the wicked will supposedly be made to suffer.



Do you think God will suffer? How much, compared to the righteous? How about the righteous? Do you think they will suffer in the judgment as they watch their loved ones suffering and dying? Do you think they will suffer more or less than the wicked?

I thought the comparison was fair. However, we can add some real "torture" to this list as well. Recall that Isaiah was sawn in two, many martyrs were first tormented with splinters under their nails, drawing up their bound arms being them until they broke, pulling them apart from limb to limb by horses, not to mention more modern forms like electric shock. Should the lost suffer less than these righteous? That's the basic question Arnold is presenting.

Of course, you have presented the use of fire as being cruel to begin with. Would it matter to you how long it was utilized? Would two hours be acceptable/too long? Four hours? Six hours (the time Jesus was on the cross)? One day? Where do you draw the line?

The point here is that you are not God to make those decisions. What you think may not be what God thinks. God knows what is just and fair. The watching universe will agree with Him. There will be no voices expressing shock that God would be so "cruel" in that day. On the contrary, many of the watching universe are shocked that He withheld His judgments so long, and extended mercy for so many thousand years--including many centuries past the Atonement where Christ had won the victory.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

First of all, would you agree that these things you are describing are properly termed torture? So aren't you asking if the lost should be tortured more than the righteous were?

Ok, to your question, I think your whole way of thinking here is off. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because martyrs were made to suffer by Satanicly inspired people doesn't mean the lost should be made to suffer more. It's not a contest to see who can cause the most suffering. Surely God would win that context, but is this what God is about? Causing suffering?

Secondly, these tortures you are mentioning, as bad as they are, could not begin to compare with the agony of being set on fire for hours at a time, with God's supernaturally intervening to make sure the people suffer. In the human organism are mechanisms to limit the amount of pain one can experience. Death is one of these! So simply by not permitting the person to die, God would be "winning" the suffering contest right there. Also, presumably, God would be preventing the nerve endings from being damaged, so the person could continue feeling pain. That's also not something that would have happened with the martyrs.

But, again, to my way thinking this whole concept is twisted. The whole idea that the lost should be made to suffer more than the righteous martyrs is not a thought that Jesus Christ would even have, IMO.



Cruelty is Satanic. I would draw the line at any cruelty at all.



What God thinks is what Jesus Christ revealed. I don't see any similarity in what Jesus Christ revealed and the concept of setting people on fire in order to make them suffer. When setting people on fire was suggested to Jesus Christ, He said "you know not what spirit you are of."



Agreed. God will not be cruel. He will exhibit the principles of "kindness, mercy and love," just as GC 542 speaks of. I don't see how setting people on fire for the purpose of causing them to suffer excruciating pain could be construed as "kindness."



God's judgments are not setting people on fire for the purpose of making them suffer. Let me ask, where in the life of Jesus Christ do you find even the remotest hint that this formed a part of His character?

This insight does not explain how the wicked will be able to physically survive revisiting their first sin (not to mention millions more) in the unveiled presence of God without dying. What makes it possible for wicked sinners to survive in the unveiled presence of God for many days without dying? Are you avoiding addressing this point?

Why isn't this idea explained in the last chapter of GC? If you think it is, please quote it.

Tom, why do you think God will resurrect the wicked knowing they will suffer excruciating anguish in His unveiled presence? Why do you think He will expose them to His unveiled presence? Why doesn't He veil His presence so it doesn't cause them such excruciating anguish? And, why doesn't His unveiled presence cause them to die right away? How are they able to live and suffer intense agony for many days?

1) Yes, I believe the martyrs were tortured, and that the word "torture" properly fits what some of them received.

2) No, I am not asking if the lost should be tortured more than the righteous.

It is not a situation of "two wrongs." This is where you are incorrect.

It is a situation of recompense. Did the martyrs deserve the torturing they received? No.

Will the wicked deserve their recompense? Yes.

The difference is huge. One was wrong, while the other is right.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It's all a matter of terms. By using the incorrect terms, one may easily be arguing on the side of Satan, that God is a cruel tyrant for destroying the sinners. That has been Satan's complaint all along, because He chose to misrepresent the truth. Had there been not a particle of truth in what Satan said, he could not so easily have deceived so many. But he twisted some actual truth, and thus maligned God's law and character.

Is God cruel? Of course not. Will He destroy sinners? He most assuredly will. Will He mete out justice in doing so? Of a certain, yes. Yet has He been merciful in delaying His judgments? Yes.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not the labels, but that act themselves are what I'm referring to. For example, one could douse a person with gasoline, and set the person on fire, and take actions to keep the person alive, so he could suffer more, and label this as not being cruel or whatever, but the action itself speaks louder than the labels.

By the way, GC, I've asked you on multiple occasions, and don't recall ever getting an answer (my apologies if you did answer this, and I'm making you repeat it), but to you see any difference between your view and the one described by Ellen White in GC 536 other than the time element? If so, what's the difference?

It sounded that way to me. You looked to me to be asking if it wasn't fair that the wicked suffer more imposed pain than the martyrs, and if you look up the definition of the word "torture," that's what it is.



I cannot conceive of how one, as a professed follower of Christ, could think that setting someone on fire for the purpose of making him suffer is not a wrong.



No, but the wicked do deserve theirs. So it's OK. I think this idea is 100% contrary to the teachings and character of Christ (and it doesn't matter what word one uses to describe the setting on fire of the wicked for the purpose of causing pain).

Where do you see that Jesus Christ treated anyone even remotely in this way? Or that He suggested that such treatment was OK?



As if changing the labels one uses can change a thing from being wrong to being right. If we call it "recompense" instead of "torture," it's OK.

The concept that God would purposely cause someone excruciating pain for the sole purpose of recompense is one I find completely foreign to the character of God and the teaching of Christ. I don't believe Christ revealed the Father to be such.