Arnold, I've already written quite a lot about this. If you're sincerely interested in researching this subject, I can post a link for you. Or if you wish to start a topic on this subject, perhaps kland will participate. If he does, I'll likely comment as well.

I don't see what these things have to do with the topic at hand, which was in regards to God's setting people on fire in order to punish them for hours or days at a time during the second resurrection.

Yes, I think Tom has explained it repetitively. So much so, I think everyone should understand what he has said and would say by now whether you agree or disagree.

But, let's take a different approach. Suppose force is a part of God's government. You point out it's written in the Bible that He did command others to kill their fellow man.

The Law of God, His character, says not to kill. But, it's been said that God kills people for good reasons. He tells others to kill people.

What if we were to kill people? What if it were for good reasons?
What if it were to punish heretics and infidels, to make them an example so that others won't be lost?

Would that be wrong?

Tom, you seem to think you have clearly answered our questions. And, yet strangely, your answers leave me wondering what you believe. Do you think God withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy people like Nadab and Abihu, the inhabitants of S&G, and Lot's wife? Likewise, do you think God will allow resurrected sinners to be destroyed in a similar manner? Finally, what part do you think the character of God will play in the destruction of the wicked?

MM, I've commented on all of these at length. I don't know what else you want me to do. The answers to your questions regarding what I think in regards to the judgment are found in DA 764, DA 108, and GC 541-543, all of which I've quoted dozens of times, and commented upon at great length, including in this very thread.

For example, from DA 764 we read:



Now I've written *much* more about this than you. What do you think it means to say "he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." I don't see how this can possible be interpreted to mean that God forces him, against his will, to submit the His radiant firelight. And if God did do this, kill people by inflicting them with His radiant firelight, wouldn't they die right away?

The role of God's character is explained in DA 108 (as well as mentioned in DA 764, although there's more detail in DA 108).

Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, I've got no idea how you could be confused what I think about this, as I've stated clearly on a number of occasions what I think happened, including just recently. What is it your confused about?

Regarding Nadab and Abihu, I invited you to start a topic if you wish to discuss it, saying if kland wishes to discuss it, I would probably comment as well.

I've also asked repeatedly what these subjects have to do with anything. What I've been arguing against is the idea that God sets people on fire in order to make them suffer in the second resurrection, regarding which you agree with me.

Separating oneself from the source of life is a figure of speech. The wicked will not pull the plug. God is the one who pulls the plug, and He will do so in a manner that will result in them suffering and dying according to their sinfulness. True, the wicked could commit suicide and die prematurely, but apparently no one will attempt it. In fact, they attempt to kill one another but God intervenes by raining down fire upon them. Supposedly the fire distracts them and they give up trying to kill each other.

The Bible and the SOP make it clear fire will be involved inn the punishment and death of the wicked. You seem to believe the fire that punishes them is symbolic and spiritual in nature, and that it is somehow related to their comprehension of the contrast between their character and God’s character. However, you come short of saying how and why they actually die. Herein lies a weakness in your position, which also happens to be why we feel you haven’t answered our questions.


What do you think Ellen is saying? Do you think she is saying comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s is what will cause the wicked to suffer according to their sinfulness? And, how and why do you think they will die? Do you believe sin will kill them? If so, how and why? Will they die of heart failure, cancer, H1N1, or something else? How would a coroner describe the cause of death?


You can eliminate the confusion by simply answering yes or no to the questions. Here they are again: “Do you think God withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy people like Nadab and Abihu, the inhabitants of S&G, and Lot's wife? Likewise, do you think God will allow resurrected sinners to be destroyed in a similar manner?”

I assume your answers are a resounding YES!!! But I need to hear it from you. If not, then you owe it to the rest of us to clearly explain what you believe. Simply citing SOP passages as if they clearly articulate your view isn’t sufficient. You must state in the plainest of words precisely what you believe how and why the wicked will suffer and how and why they will die. So far you have been vague and less than forthcoming. Please, Tom, it’s time to plainly state your position.


I’m not entirely sure God will not employ literal fire, in addition to the radiant firelight of His person and presence, to punish and destroy the wicked. In the same way you are forced to believe God will keep the wicked alive supernaturally so that they can suffer spiritually according to their sinfulness without dying prematurely, so too, I suspect God will do something similar so that they can suffer emotionally and physically as He permits both types of fire to do their work.

Do you think the Bible and Ellen White may use figure of speeches?

Here's what you are saying:



Here's what DA 764 says:



It's hard for me to see how you could have written something more contrary to what she's saying.



She says



So the problem is their sin. When the character of God is revealed, it manifests sin. That's (that there is sin to be manifest) the problem.



I don't understand why you think there's any confusion regarding S&G. I wrote what I think on this very thread. Could you please look at what I wrote regarding Sodom and Gomorrah? If you see something that's not clear, please quote it, and comment.



You say it's time for me to plainly state my position as if I haven't done so. I've written many, many pages regarding this. Also, as I've pointed out, you haven't shown any interest in studying this subject as I've suggested it should be studied, whereas I've spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours studying this subject as you have wished. It hardly seems fair to me for you to be reprimanding me in any way. Why not do what I want to do?

Again, regarding N & A, please start a thread on this if you wish to discuss it. I'm interested in kland's thoughts. If he wishes to discuss this, I'll likely join in.

I don't see what it has to do with the subject matter of this thread, which is if the wicked suffer because God sets them on fire for hours or days in the final judgment.



A little while ago you were saying you didn't think God would set people on fire. You've changed your mind?



I don't agree with this statement.

DA 764 says that Satan and his followers will perish when God leaves him to suffer the full result of sin, and that God will not leave the lost to so suffer until it's time for them to die, which will be when they voluntarily choose to do so.



I think this is an awful idea.

It reminds me of this:



In the context of your statement, "As if God wants the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically, and causes this to happen." A thousand times no! God does NOT want the wicked to suffer. They suffer *contrary to His wishes*. And God does nothing at all to cause them to suffer, but everything possible to remove their suffering. They only suffer because they refuse to do God's will, which would result in the removal of their suffering, but insist on doing their own will, of which the inevitable result is suffering and death.

Exactly. And it is a game of words you are playing. Unfortunately, your game may have eternally negative consequences.

Just look at this short exchange, which illustrates your penchant for word games:
T: 5.Destruction was invented by Satan. It is the fruit of sin. God would be implementing the tools of the enemy were He to do so.
A: 5. The earth will be destroyed by fire and made new. Satan is responsible for this destruction? I don't think so. It is more accurate to say that Satan was the first to make himself subject to destruction.
T: Yes, Satan is responsible for the destruction of the earth. The destruction of the earth became inevitable once sin entered in, and Satan is the author of sin and all its results. As the author, Satan is responsible.

You were talking about destruction as a tool. Then, when I pointed out that God does indeed use that tool (since Satan obviously can't be using that tool to destroy the earth after he has been destroyed himself), you pull the old switcheroo. To continue your defense, you switch from the context of "responsible" as one who implements the tool of destruction, to "responsible" as one who is culpable for the condition that will be destroyed.

Is it that hard to say, "Yes, God will destroy the earth to make it new" rather than continuing to hold an indefensible position at all costs? Satan will be dead, so God will do the destroying. It is very simple; we just have to be willing to admit that we might not be correct on everything.

Anyway, I tried to make the "force" illustration above really clear and obvious, but you are still unable to help clear things up. Rather than answering in a transparent manner, you choose to give a non-answer. Yes, it is undeniable that you have written volumes, but your positions have not been transparent.

If, rather than giving a useless non-answer, you had given a straightforward answer to my straightforward question, your reply would have looked something like this: I disagree because the "force" you are talking about is not the "force" EGW was talking about when she said God does not use force. Had you done that, you might have gotten a better grasp of why I reject your universal application of that quote. But it would not bode well for your position if you allowed for the possibility of God using force.

In case I haven't been transparent enough, the crux of my rejection of your universal application of the principle that "God doesn't use force" is that "force" does not have a universal meaning. Here's some inspired commentary showing the various meanings of "force" - some of which God uses and some He does not:

I even color-coded it to make even more transparent what I believe.

Just like in our wrestling over Christ's human nature, we must realize that inspiration sometimes uses words that don't always mean the same thing. We agree that it's about words. I would like to agree to stop playing around and get serious - serious about discovering God's truth, which is usually not the same thing as being serious about defending one's position.

Re: God killing people with fire from the cloud and commanding Moses to stone people:

The reasoning you use to deny that God killed people (directly or indirectly) is the same you use to deny that God will cause people to burn in the end.

I disagree. Tom has confusing and conflicting positions. I've even seen him argue with his own posts. So, rather than assuming, I prefer to ask. But as you can see, even a simple question does not always result in a simple answer, though the answer is very easy to give.


The law says, "Thou shalt not kill" (Strong's 7523). Then God said in Exodus 22:24, "I will kill you" (Strong's 2026). Since God used two different words, perhaps they don't mean the same thing.

I wrote to Tom that one word can have different meanings. Certainly, different words can have different meanings.


Would we be God or people?

If we were God, we would know who should or should not be killed, and why, and when, and how, and do it right. We could even cause people untold mental anguish, cause suffering worse than physical fire, and do it for days on end before they finally die, and still be right. Even Ty and Tom believe that.

But if we were people? Yes, it would be wrong. We would be doing what Satan wanted to do: be like the Most High. We need to understand that we are not God, and as creatures, even creatures made in the image of God, we don't have all the prerogatives of divinity. But I know that not everyone agrees with that view.

Now, let me ask you. If God did not want Phinehas to kill the adulterous Israelite, would God have rewarded him? If Moses told the people to stone the stick-gatherer, and they said, "Oh, we would never do that because that is against God's commandment and character," would that have been right?