M: However, I assume you agree with me the deaf will not be offended when Jesus resurrects them without their handicap?

T: Those in the Deaf community don't view it as a handicap. This is another example of insensitivity. (I should have capitalized it before. "Deaf," as opposed to "deaf," differentiates between someone who is in the community as opposed to someone who cannot hear.

T: There will be billions of people present, all of them being individually judged. We're told that each one is made aware of their sins, where they deviated from the right path, and where God tried to reach them. How do you think this happens if not by God's communicating with them mind to mind?

M: Do you think any part of the final judgment will happen verbally or visually? If so, please explain your answer. Thank you.

T: You didn't answer my question. You didn't even address it. I already answered your question. I answered it, and pointed out that I answered it. Why need I answer it again? Why when I ask you a question to do you not answer it, but instead ask me a question I've already answered?

M: Jesus told Ellen that the Father has a form like His. You seem to think the Father’s form is different than Jesus’ form. Why?

T: When she asked a form like Himself, she was asking "a form, like you have a form," not "a form which looks like your form."

M: I believe the Father has a form like Jesus' form.

T: You mean a human form?

M: I also believe the Father has a form like our form.

T: You mean a human form?

M: We were made in His image and likeness. I also believe we will be able to sit on our Father's lap and listen to Him tell stories. Does your view of the Father allow you to anticipate sitting on His lap?

T: How does this fit into our conversation? I must say I find your view of God's character to be rather schizophrenic. On the one hand, you picture God as One who would have us sin on His lap while telling us stories. This is a rather childish view, but in an endearing way. This isn't a something I've thought of, but I find no fault in it. Certainly God desires that we view Him as our Father, and the activity you're suggesting is a Father-like activity, although one usually considers it in the context of children. But you also hold to the idea that God will use fire to arbitrarily (as per Webster's primary definition) punish people. These (i.e. these two views of God's character) seem like strange bedfellows.

Ellen wrote, "Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused."

She enumerates three things: 1) Satan will suffer for his sins, 2) for the sins of the saved, and 3) for causing the loss of souls. You, on the other hand, do not believe Satan will suffer as if he himself committed the sins of the saved.You believe he will merely suffer for tempting them to sin.

You believe one and two above are one and the same; whereas, Ellen plainly says otherwise.

M: However, I assume you agree with me the deaf will not be offended when Jesus resurrects them without their handicap?

T: Those in the Deaf community don't view it as a handicap. This is another example of insensitivity. (I should have capitalized it before. "Deaf," as opposed to "deaf," differentiates between someone who is in the community as opposed to someone who cannot hear.

M:Do you agree with my comment above? Or, do you believe deaf people will be offended? Do you believe He will resurrect them without the sense of hearing?

T: There will be billions of people present, all of them being individually judged. We're told that each one is made aware of their sins, where they deviated from the right path, and where God tried to reach them. How do you think this happens if not by God's communicating with them mind to mind?

M: Do you think any part of the final judgment will happen verbally or visually? If so, please explain your answer. Thank you.

T: You didn't answer my question. You didn't even address it. I already answered your question. I answered it, and pointed out that I answered it. Why need I answer it again? Why when I ask you a question to do you not answer it, but instead ask me a question I've already answered?

M:Frustrating, isn’t it!

M:Sorry about that. Actually, you know what I believe about it, that is, you know I believe Jesus will resurrect them with all their senses in working order and that He will communicate everything verbally and visually. You also know I believe He will either resurrect them understanding the same language or with the ability to hear everything He says in their own language. The fact is I don’t know if you believe Jesus will communicate verbally and visually as well communicate mind-to-mind. Do you?

The fact is I don’t know if you believe Jesus will communicate verbally and visually as well communicate mind-to-mind.

Yes, the Father has a “human form” like Jesus.

And, no, neither Jesus nor the Father nor the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic.

Punishing and destroying unredeemable sinners is in perfect harmony with law and justice, legitimate attributes of God’s character. I take it you don’t envision yourself sitting on God’s lap and listening to Him tell stories?

He'll suffer in accordance to his responsibility, exactly what is just. No more and no less. Not just in relation to the saved, but his responsibility for all, humans and angels.


I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. What I've said is that Satan will suffer in accordance to his responsibility, the same as everyone else. God doesn't arbitrarily treat Satan differently (worse) than anyone else. All suffer in accordance to their responsibility. No more and no less.

M: However, I assume you agree with me the deaf will not be offended when Jesus resurrects them without their handicap?

T: Those in the Deaf community don't view it as a handicap. This is another example of insensitivity. (I should have capitalized it before. "Deaf," as opposed to "deaf," differentiates between someone who is in the community as opposed to someone who cannot hear.

M: Do you agree with my comment above? Or, do you believe deaf people will be offended? Do you believe He will resurrect them without the sense of hearing?

T: I've already answered these questions.

T: There will be billions of people present, all of them being individually judged. We're told that each one is made aware of their sins, where they deviated from the right path, and where God tried to reach them. How do you think this happens if not by God's communicating with them mind to mind?

M: Do you think any part of the final judgment will happen verbally or visually? If so, please explain your answer. Thank you.

T: You didn't answer my question. You didn't even address it. I already answered your question. I answered it, and pointed out that I answered it. Why need I answer it again? Why when I ask you a question to do you not answer it, but instead ask me a question I've already answered?

M: Frustrating, isn’t it! Sorry about that.

T: It's character building.

M: Actually, you know what I believe about it, that is, you know I believe Jesus will resurrect them with all their senses in working order and that He will communicate everything verbally and visually. You also know I believe He will either resurrect them understanding the same language or with the ability to hear everything He says in their own language. The fact is I don’t know if you believe Jesus will communicate verbally and visually as well as communicate mind-to-mind. Do you?

T: I don't think you understood my question. Or if you did, you still haven't answered it. The SOP said God will show each one where they went astray, making clear to them the sin of their lives, and where He spoke to them. How does God do this? He doesn't publish this publicly, does He, for each one to hear? If He did this, the judgment would take millions of years. He communicates to each one personally, doesn't He?

You appear to think that because you speak a spoken language, then everyone else has to as well. Because you understand things visually, everyone else must as well. You look to be judging the whole world according to your own experience.

I think this idea is simplistic. Consider a deaf mute person. Your idea is that God will raise them from the dead with the ability to see and hear so that He can communicate to them visually, and He will give them the gift of "hearing" so they can hear in their own language, except that they don't have a language, because they don't know any spoken language. So what spoken language would God communicate to them in?

Why would it even cross your mind that this would be a superior solution to God's simply communicating to them the way He did throughout the entirety of their lives? Why would God create a brand new way of communicating to people? For what purpose?

M: Yes, the Father has a “human form” like Jesus.

T: So God looks like a human being is your idea. Do you think all worlds will see God as a human being? God created millions of worlds, none of which looked like Him, and then communicated human being, which do look like Him. That's the idea?

M: And, no, neither Jesus nor the Father nor the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic.

T: I spoke of your views of God's character, not God.

M: Punishing and destroying unredeemable sinners is in perfect harmony with law and justice, legitimate attributes of God’s character. I take it you don’t envision yourself sitting on God’s lap and listening to Him tell stories?

T: You have one view which is childlike (that's a better word than "childish," as the latter is pejorative; I should have said this), in a rather charming or endearing way. Then you have this other view which is horrific, having God artificially imposing suffering upon people to punish them (aka "torture"; e.g. "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning) to punish" -- Webster's). These don't go together. IMO, you should keep the childlike one, but let the other one go. Regarding my own thoughts on the lap question, I commented on this.

T: The law is a transcript of God's character. I've been asking all along how you think it's possible that God would act contrary to His own character. That the wicked will be destroyed and punished is fine, and to suggest that this is in harmony with the demands of the law, or, which is equivalent, God's character, is fine to. Provided we understand God's character, this will lead to a correct understanding, IMO. Where I see a problem is if we think God will use artificial means to destroy and punish, such as setting people on fire. This would be torture, and is contrary to God's character.

M:Jesus employed fire to destroy thousands of men, women, and children without violating the law or being in contradiction of Himself.

There is nothing arbitrary about Jesus executing justice and judgment.

In doing so He is merely acting in harmony with the just and loving demands of law and justice.

T: 1.Jesus Christ has no desire to destroy. 2.Destruction certainly would not vindicate God's character. Satan is the destroyer. God is the restorer. God's character is vindicated by making this truth known, which the judgment will make clear.

M: I disagree.

T: So you're thinking is the following? 1.Jesus Christ desires to destroy. 2.Destruction vindicates God's character. 3.Satan is the restorer, God is the destroyer. 4.God's character is not vindicated by making known that He is the restorer and Satan is the destroyer.

M:Yes, to 1 and 2; no to 3 and 4.

God is the life-giver. From the beginning, all His laws were ordained to life. But sin broke in upon the order that God had established, and discord followed. So long as sin exists, suffering and death are inevitable.(God's Amazing Grace 73)

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. What I've said is that Satan will suffer in accordance to his responsibility, the same as everyone else. God doesn't arbitrarily treat Satan differently (worse) than anyone else. All suffer in accordance to their responsibility. No more and no less.

MM:What you're saying isn't what I hear Ellen saying.

I see a fundamental difference between the two. Again, she wrote, "Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused." She is clearly saying Satan will be punished as if he himself committed the sins of the saved.

It is similar to how and why Jesus suffered for the sins of the world, as if He Himself committed them, and it is no less arbitrary. I hear you, on other hand, saying Satan will be punished for his role in tempting them to sin but not as though he himself committed their sins. Have I misunderstood you?