That was my point.

Once again you haven't explained these basics points. For example, I believe it is necessary for God to resurrect the wicked in order to punish and destroy them. I have no idea what you believe.

Also, I believe God commanded people to execute sinners because the penalty for sinning is capital punishment. The law of Moses symbolizes this truth. I have no idea what you believe.

I'd suggest reading the detailed post I read on this.



Again, this is going back quite a ways. I'm not surprised, given your paradigm, that you would say this, however. It could be a lack of ability on my part to explain things, I'll admit, but as I've thought about this, I don't think, given your present paradigm, that it's possible for you to understand what I said. That is, I've tried to put myself in your shoes, and I don't think I, thinking as you do, could understand the things I had been trying to share. This is why I suggested studying some other things.

If either of us were cursed with below average intelligence your explanation might make sense. However, neither of us are in this state or condition. Therefore, your inability to explain what you believe, so that people like me can grasp it, might indicate a problem with your idea rather than a problem with people like me.

I'm not unable to explain what I believe, just unable to do so in a way that you can understand. Whether that's due to a shortcoming on my part or yours I won't judge. I've certainly exerted a great deal of effort to do so.

Yes, you have expended a lot of energy. Thank you. However, you have also opted not to explain certain aspects of suffering and death, which has created gaps. These gaps in your theology have contributed to difficulty in understanding your views.

Perhaps the gaps you're referring to may not be due entirely to my explanations but due to a lack of comprehension. I spent a considerable amount of time and effort to explain things in great detail. If you're interested in studying the subject further, I can point you to some things to look at.

Tom,

I'm sure it's all crystal clear in your mind, and I am also certain that you see no gaps. But Mike and I do see them. They may be well within your blind spot, so that you do not realize there is a gap, but from an outside perspective, the gap is there.

The crux of the gap is something missing in your explanation. I tend to think of it as something you have been purposefully avoiding, even when the rest of us ask direct questions aimed at the gap. You have consistently deflected those kinds of questions in one way or another. Common types of things you will say, instead of simply answering the direct question, include:

"Please quote me."

"I have already addressed that."

"You did not answer my question." (A "you-go-first" response.)

etc.

None of these responses answers the question. It only keeps us all going in circles. (We must go BACK to find the right quote, or find where you believe you answered something, or else post a different response first, etc....this thread has consequently a never-ending cycle of looking back to try to solve the present questions.)

The critical GAP question, in a nutshell, is this: "Why will the wicked die?"

There are multiple correct answers, but only one that we are looking for. Here's an example of what I mean:

Imagine a young man, drinking alcohol. A permissive father lets him borrow the car keys. The car has been built with speed. A sharp corner near the edge of a cliff causes the young man's father's speeding car to be hurled down to its end. Thus the young man perishes. What killed him?

a) alcohol
b) gravity
c) the car
d) the father
e) the county commissioner who failed to build a guardrail there
f) the liquor manufacturer
g) Satan, for tempting the man
h) the young man was deliberately committing suicide and choosing death
i) [enter a host of other possibilities]

There is no specific correlation intended between this example and the topic of the lost in hell. The intention is merely to illustrate two things: 1) there are multiple "causative factors" in the man's death; and 2) to focus on just one thing, to the exclusion of all the others, is to leave some gaps.

This is where, Tom, you have left a gap. You say that sin kills the wicked. This is true, but not the complete truth. In the next sentence you will acknowledge that sin is not a sentient being, and does not directly cause the wicked's death. What does, then? This is THE GAP.

It is just as implausible to some of us that the wicked would be committing suicide in hell, as is the suicide option in the list above. No one in his right mind wishes to die, and you will have a difficult time convincing me that God would have all of the lost bow to Him in the judgment when not in their right mind.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Another gap I see in Tom's theory is his unwillingness to explain why Jesus commanded people to execute sinners.

It is also difficult to link his thoughts concerning the "inevitable result of sin" and the "light of the glory of God". He is content to conclude sinners will suffer and die according to their sinfulness when God withdraws His protection. What is not clear is how sees the "light of the glory of God" fitting in. He is careful to say comprehending the character of God during judgment is not what causes them to suffer and die.

That you might see some gaps doesn't surprise me, as we've not discussed the subject very much. I've probably discussed this with you about 2% of what I've discussed with MM.



Again, what you've seen in regards to discussions is the tip of the iceberg. Also, I've discussed this topic with many people. I would expect gaps would have been pointed out by others.



Context is important here. Regarding the first one, "Please quote me," it's frustrating to have one's position misrepresented. I've had a number of people remark to me personally that they are amazed at some of these misrepresentations.

I don't mind being paraphrased if this is done with some competency. Rosangela is competent at this, so I wouldn't mind her paraphrasing me, but she generally uses direct quotes, as I do, because it's important to her to be fair and accurate in her handling of the positions others hold.

Regarding "I have already addressed that," this is in response to MM, right? I've written literally hundreds of pages on the subjects we're discussing. It is my point of view that I've been extremely patient with his questions. But there comes a point when one is asked the same question over and over again, which has already been answered, that I'll respond "I have already address that." I don't believe I've responded to anyone else in this way, unless it's something I had just written recently so the person's question indicates they haven't read a recent post.

I don't think there's anyone on this forum, with the possible exception of MM, who is also very conscientious in this regard, who answers the posts of others as consistently as I do. I rarely leave a discussion to die by simply not responding to it, and neither does MM, but pretty much everyone else here does this.

I'm not bringing this up to complain, because I think it's perfectly acceptable to not respond to a post because one simply doesn't feel like it, but am mentioning this to bring out that I believe I am very conscientious when it comes to responding to the posts of others.

Regarding "you go first," I don't often do this, but sometimes I do, when I want to here what a person is thinking before I respond.



Well, if someone asks a question based on something I've not said, it's not a reasonable request, IMO, for such a question to be answered. It shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Similarly if a question has been asked dozens of times, at some point in time I should be able to point out that I've answered the question. At one point, with MM, I counted the number of questions he was asking. It was like 50, as I recall. One right after the other. There are limits to how many questions one can answer.

Regarding "you first," I addressed that .



The topic in this particular thread is a very simple one. I take issue with your idea that God will set people on fire to make them suffer, controlling their suffering based on a controlled burn. I think this is barbarous and horrendous. I can't think of a worse misrepresentation of God's character than this.

Regarding what I think happens is that sin is deadly, like poison, and that God prevents this poison from killing people. In the judgment, I believe God "let's go" of those who do not desire His company, and this this is His wrath. I believe they suffer and die, because suffering and death is the inevitable result of sin. I believe these principles are spelled out in DA 764.

I think this is sufficient. I don't think it's necessary to try to go into minute details where such has not been given.



Regarding why the wicked die, I think the best answer to this question is to study the death of Christ. This is what Ellen White's explanation of the death of the wicked is on DA 764. This chapter, "It Is Finished," is dealing with the things which Christ's death accomplished. One of these things was to explain why the wicked will die.

These principles are laid out in DA 764. I have, on many occasions, on this very thread, enumerated the points brought out in this passage.