Red Herring bordering on Ad Hominem. Is painting the opposition in a bad light the best argument you can muster? That's another logical fallacy, BTW, the name of which escapes me at the moment. You can probably do better than that.

Plus, it doesn't even address the question. Care to tackle it yourself?

How many children have you raised or are raising? If the answer is greater than zero, have you ever disciplined them, or do you just let them do as they please and reap whatever consequences naturally come with what they sow?

I thought we were talking about mentally torturing people and not letting their sin kill them right away until they willingly say God was right.

This "paint the other guy black" is pretty easy and fun, but it doesn't seem to get us anywhere productive.

Can you give me the post number? I think I missed it. Thanks.

I was comparing the time of the trouble to the last day:


I would discipline my children to encourage them in the way they should go. Now, some may still choose not to go that way.
Should I kill them?

Or, do you say that God isn't going to directly kill them?
If I am hearing you correctly, that is more in line of what Tom and I are saying. God won't do anything but will withdraw protection as He was forced to do in the past, and as in the time of the trouble.

I was quoting the GC.


It = the wicked acknowledging the justice of God.


You said it "happens naturally".

You're saying the GC says that they acknowledge the justice of God through "unwilling lips"?



Why are you asking if the righteous can live happily ever after without this? The primary issue is the vindication of God's character.



This means "as a natural consequence," not that it has "natural elements."

I don't think so, not in context. Here's the context:



The context of our discussion is the suffering of the lost, which you believe is caused by God's setting them on fire (at least, you've said you're "leaning" towards this). In this context, you're asking how many children one has raised, and trying to explain why this isn't off topic.

This doesn't seem to make any sense because setting people on fire would hardly be "discipline."



The difference is that what I am "painting" is an accurate representation of what you actually believe, whereas what you write isn't. That is, I can ask you, "Do you believe that God will cause people to suffer by setting them on fire?" and you would answer "yes" (or "I'm leaning that way."). But if you asked your "painting" of what I said, I would answer "no," and that you were misrepresenting my position.

Regarding the post I wrote, I'm not sure where it is. It brought out among the reasons for the second resurrection are:

1.Vindication of God's character (the lost play an essential role in this).
2.The lost have unanswered questions to be addressed.
3.The relatives of the lost are interested in their reaction (i.e., what would they do if they actually saw God in person, and witnessed His love being revealed?).
4.Punishment.

Actually, this whole discussion went off-topic with the word "discipline." Hell is no such thing. It cannot be compared to disciplining a child.

Why do parents discipline their children? To correct and train them to better character. Is that what God is doing with the wicked in hell? Far from it. If we were to teach that God is disciplining the wicked, this would be, at its core, a second-chance theology.

Hell is punishment, but not discipline. It is a purging of sin from the universe, root, branch, and fruit. The wicked will receive their wages of sin.

These following commands of God are more representative of the punishment of the wicked being addressed in this thread.


As for any similarity to disciplining children, it is probably most similar to the following instructions for rebellious children:


Thus did God command that sin be put away from the congregation of the people. These were but precursors of the future cleansing of the universe in like fashion. If God commanded various forms of punishment in times past--stoning, burning with fire, hanging, death by sword, etc.--why does it seem strange that one of these same tools should be again selected for the final cleansing from sin?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, you haven't given a satisfactory answer as to why it is necessary for God to resurrect the wicked. Nor have you explained why God commanded people to execute sinners.

Did you read it? I think it was pretty good. I haven't seen any evidence that you read it.



You're going way back here! I wrote a lot about this. But, given your paradigm, I don't think what I said could possibly make sense to you.