I've protested against the idea of the wicked's being burned alive. I haven't protested against against "any kind of prolonged punishment for the wicked, prolonged 'suffering,' as being a form of torture."

This is a misrepresentation of my position.



I've only protested against setting people on fire to burn for days as being torturous.



No I don't. I disagree with the idea that Ellen White taught that God will set people on fire to burn for hours or days for the purpose of making them suffer as a payment for their sins. If you look through this thread, you will see that I've repeated this again and again. This is what I've been protesting against.



The missing puzzle piece you're suggesting isn't anything I've said. My protests, throughout this whole thread, have been specifically against the idea that God will set people on fire to burn for up to many days.

Chuckle. You got that right! It's still missing because you still have not said it!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Above she says their punishment will eventually end in death. Do you think it is reasonable to deduce they will die as a result of their punishment? Or, do you think it makes more sense to assume they die of something unrelated to their punishment? Both are important – who or what punishes them and who or what causes them to die.

If they die as a result of their punishment, then knowing who or what punished them, what means were employed and whether or not it resulted in their death, could help us understand the truth about judgment and God. But if they die of causes unrelated to their punishment, then it is important to understand why.

You seem to think their punishment will consist of God forcing them to revisit their sins in judgment. Comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s will cause them unequaled and unimaginable pain and agony. As each sin is revisited their pain and agony will increase and intensify. Try as they might, God will not allow them to hide or escape it.

There is a huge gap in your theory, a big disconnect. You portray them suffering as God forces them to revisit their sins, and then the next thing we know they’re turning upon one another in fits of rage. They are very much alive after revisiting their last sin, so much so they have energy enough to vent their murderous rage among themselves.

Were it not for God intervening, by raining down and raising up fire, they might very well wipe each other out. Apparently, though, it is not God’s will or desire for them to execute and eliminate themselves. It is not until well after the end of judgment, however, that they experience punishment in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

How do you rationalize this disconnect, the long time-gap between revisiting their last sin and being punished in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness?

What could be more arbitrary than resurrecting them? What could be more arbitrary than forcing them to revisit their sins in judgment? What could be more arbitrary than preventing them from hiding? What could be more than arbitrary than raining down fire from above and raising up fire from below?

Also, you have yet to demonstrate from the Bible or the SOP the nature of their suffering, why they are suffering, and what they are suffering over. You seem to think they are suffering for the same reasons Jesus did on the cross, which implies the nature of their suffering is holy and righteous, rather than sinful and selfish. You seem to think comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s is what causes them to suffer. But why would it? His righteousness offers zero appeal.

The truth is – they’re sorry for sinful reasons. They were unable to defeat God and take New Jerusalem by force. These are not the reasons Jesus suffered on the cross. Far from it. The wicked are not sorry for righteous reasons. No way. They could care less that their character and God’s are radically different. The only thing that bothers them is that they didn’t win the GC. They do not crave or desire a character like God’s. They despise it and Him. This is how it is portrayed in the SOP.

There's post #120747, which ends with this:

It matters because, as you say, they will suffer and die when He stops preventing it. Elsewhere you seem to be saying He prevents it by bearing their sin and guilt. This is, according to you, what enables them to sin without experiencing the real result of sin, making what they do experience arbitrary in the sense they should die not endure a lifetime of suffering.

The view I have embraced, however, does not require God to do something arbitrary to prevent sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin. Again, He simply veils His radiant light and they are able to sin without dying. Barring access to the tree of life, however, results in a long, lingering first death.


Do you think Jesus continues to bear their sin and guilt? If not, what does He do to arbitrarily prevent them from dying prematurely, before they revisit their last sin?


You didn’t answer the question. Do you agree sin results in death? Or, do you think sin results in “life apart from God”? I’m talking about what would have happened had God not intervened and arbitrarily prevented the real result of sin. I’m also referring to the result of revisiting sin during judgment. Again, do you agree each sin is sufficient to cause intense suffering ending in death? Or, do you think sinners have the ability to withstand revisiting sin and live apart from God?

You didn't address Arnold's point - Who or what enables prolific sinners to live longer than sparing sinners?

Do you think Nadab and Abihu spontaneously combusted? Or, do you think they died of means other than fire or the radiant light of God? If so, what do you think caused them to die?

Also, what caused the following sinners to die:

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

2 Kings
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

Here's the context:



The underlined statement is a false assertion on your part. You have I've "always protested" this, when the truth is I never have. I've been protesting against the idea that God sets people on fire to cause them to suffer for a prolonged period of time.

The definition for "torture" I've had in mind is the following:



This is what I've been denying God does. The wicked do actually suffer, but not for the reasons brought out by this definition. There suffering is, to use your expression, non-torturous.

Yes. Their punishment is to suffer the consequences of their choice, to reap the full result of their sin, which God leaves them to.



Their sin is the cause of their punishment. Their punishment is to reap the full result of their sin.



These aren't different things. They cause themselves to die by choosing sin. That's DA 764.



They die due to their choice of sin. The cross is the best means to understand their death.



DA 107-108 speaks of their death coming as a result of the light of the glory of God, which, in context, is the revelation of God's character.



Just to be clear, this isn't something I've said.



Nor this.



I haven't done this. You seem to prefer putting words into my mouth rather than quoting my actual words.



I don't think you're portraying things as they will occur. Your description leaves out any mention of the cross, or the principles brought out in DA 107,108, or GC 541-543, or DA 764.

I've pointed this out many times, but your portrayals stay the same as before. IMO, they are one-sided, not considering all the evidence we have to consider, especially not the cross, and, consequently, you wind up with an idea which I think is far from reality.