Of course it doesn't dictate reality. That would be silly to suggest. But does it represent reality? Not completely, I would agree. All of our views are going to be off to varying degrees. I think my view has the advantage of at least being in harmony with what we know of God's character. I think your view is presenting God's character to be diametrically opposed to what it actually is.



This is an example of what I'm saying in regards to misrepresenting God's character. "What's a few days' worth of vengeance in comparison to this?" This, IMO, does not in the slightest represent the teachings of Christ, who taught that one should turn the other cheek and love one's enemy. This is misrepresenting the vengeance of God as being similar to that of an evil man. I'll explain.

If there is a kingdom in which there is injustice, and a person takes power over that kingdom, and decides to punish those who were unjust in the previous administration, what would you think of the one who took power if he were to set those who were previously in power on fire? Wouldn't the words "savage" and "cruel" (or worse) come to mind? Wouldn't someone who did this thinking of it as "justice" rightly be described as ignorant and hard-hearted?

But in the case of God, it's worse than this, because He has the power, and supposedly uses it, to prevent people from dying, so they can experience more pain. I really don't understand how anyone who loves God and believes Jesus Christ represented Him can entertain this idea.

And to call this "justice" is atrocious. Setting people on fire is not divine justice. The ignorant, hard-hearted man mentioned above could think this is justice, but not the Lord, who so loved the world that He gave His Son.



But David didn't set anyone on fire, nor torture anyone in any manner whatsoever.



What's "offends" is the following:

1.I make 10 points and ask 10 questions, and you respond to maybe half.
2.You make 10 points and ask 10 questions, and I respond to all but one.
3.I don't make any point at all in regards to your omissions.
4.You characterize my omission as "evading the Bible texts."

I hope you can see the injustice in this. I'm happy to converse with you in regards to the issues we are discussing, but please omit any personal comments.



No, it's not. As I pointed out, many don't read the texts the way you do. In this very forum, at the moment, you are the only one I'm aware of that is fully committed to the view you are presenting. Arnold says he's "leaning" toward it. If I understand MM correctly, he used to hold it, but doesn't any more, instead thinking there will be fire around the wicked, but not that they will actually be set on fire for many hours or many days. I don't think Rosangela has ever held this view. Teresa doesn't hold this view. Kland doesn't hold it. I don't hold it. I think that's everyone discussing this thread.

I'm just giving this as an example, as this is a sample size which is right at hand. The point is that many people have read the same texts you are reading and do not come to the same conclusion you do. They are just as entitled to be right as you are.



Even a child would understand that setting a person on fire is cruel. It's certainly not necessary to set someone on fire for many hours or many days, and exercise supernatural power for the sole purpose of enabling the person to experience excruciating pain in order to put a stop to sin.



No, this isn't the point, GC. There is something within you that allows you to view this interpretation as a possibility. This is why I gave the example of interpreting something in Scripture as God's lying. I'm assuming you would reject this interpretation on the face of it because you don't believe that it is in harmony with God's character to lie. But for some reason you think it is in harmony with God's character to set people on fire for hours or days of at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain. What I'm asking is why you think God is such a Being that it is possible for Him to act in this way.



But the interpretation you are giving manifests the behavior which was rejected by Christ, and by the SOP. Specifically, the SOP said



Now setting someone on fire, and keeping the alive so they can suffer excruciating pain, is manifesting a disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate one's work.



No it's not. You're presenting the idea that God sets people on fire, and supernaturally keeps them on fire so they can suffer excruciating pain. You think this is "vengeance" and "justice." But this is not stated anywhere in inspiration. This is just an interpretation of a passage which you hold, an interpretation that many do not hold.



No, you should adjust your preconceptions to agree with the truth. The truth is that God is not cruel. The truth is that setting people on fire for many hours or many days, and supernaturally keeping them alive to suffer excruciating pain is unspeakably cruel.



You shouldn't accept cruelty.



What specifically? Do you mean set people on fire for many hours or many days?



No, but you have reason to doubt your interpretations if they lead to the conclusions that God is acting cruelly.



Reason to believe that God doesn't set people on fire for many hours or many days? I've given many reasons not to believe this. For one thing, it is cruel.



What I'm arguing against is the idea that God will set people on fire for many days or many hours, using supernatural power keep them alive and enable them to suffer. There's certainly nothing in inspiration which says this. The reason to doubt your interpretation of things is because it's cruel.

I will so suggest now. You are misrepresenting my thoughts. How many times must I say that God does not torture before you will cease saying that is what I am saying?

Let me put it to you another way...

If a parent spanks his child, is this "torture?" Pain, yes. Punishment, yes. Torture, no.

I was spanked as a child. I never, even then, thought of it as torture. Sometimes it was with a belt, or a wooden spoon on a bare bottom. It stung. It hurt. But I never thought of it as torture.

In Thailand, I witnessed the school disciplinarian whipping students who had not been obedient the day before. They may have missed class, not finished their homework, come to school late, or not wearing the proper uniform. Their uniforms consisted of shorts or short skirts (it's a very hot climate there), and the disciplinarian would apply a small willow-type whip to the bare portion of their legs. This was done in front of all the other students at flag raising. Did the whip sting? Certainly. Depending on the offense, it may have been applied one or several times. Did the sting of the whip hurt the most? I don't think so. I think they were most hurt by the embarrassment in front of their peers. Was it torture?

From your definition, it sounds like the only aspect of punishment that turns it into "torture" is "time." Does this mean that the first swat of the spanking would not be "torture" but the next four would be "torture" because it is continuing the punishment?

Of course, perhaps you feel parents should never spank, I don't know. Many do feel this way in modern society, and the children's behavior shows it. On the other hand, you may point out that disciplining a child is redemptive/corrective, whereas the final punishment for sin is not. This is true. But, the point to be clarified here is that "time" alone does not constitute "torture."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,



Three points here:

1) I have stated in my previous posts my position on this.
2) Ellen White never, that I am aware of, calls hell "torture". I politely request that you discontinue calling it thus until you prove to me otherwise.
3) Punishment does not equal torture, and yet punishments are not all equal. It stands to reason that some should receive greater punishment than others. To think otherwise is to make God out to be unfair.

Consider this: The saints will receive their rewards based on their works. Not all will have the same privileges in Heaven. Not all will have the same number of stars in their crowns. Yet not a one of us will feel God is unfair.

Would it be fair of God to have all of the wicked suffer the same punishment? Satan, who has caused the ruin of billions of beings, has sinned for thousands of years, and who inflicted such harsh treatment on Jesus Himself...should his punishment be equal to that of the poor man who did not know God, and who failed to overcome selfishness in some small thing?

If you feel it is unfair for some to be punished longer, your definition of fairness is incomprehensible to me.

Note: Punishment does not equal torture. Even the dictionary would agree with me. Please do not continue to misconstrue this point.




Ellen White tells us some suffer longer than others. She does not say some are tortured longer. Nor does she qualify fully what type of suffering it is. It may be emotional. It may be physical. It is almost certainly a combination of the two, because we are given the terms "consuming," "fire," "burnings," "weeping," "wailing," and "gnashing of teeth" as well (not all in the same quote).

When an angel is quoted in this statement, and the angel says of those in hell, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon," do you believe this? Or do you feel this is heresy which amounts to "torture?" When Mrs. White prefaced the angel's words with "Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained," can you merely deny this? Or will you, as I do, recognize that this is inspired revelation of future events?

More importantly, would you wish me to deny what inspiration teaches?

Certainly, we must have a balance. Jude says, "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (21-23).

Two points from the above:

1) We should be looking for the mercy of Jesus Christ in these things.
2) Some people will be brought to salvation through their fear of hell, just as some are brought to God by compassion. Each person will be motivated in the beginning a little differently. These things are written for our admonition. If this is not your medicine, there is still no need to deny it of others.

In the end, all will serve God from love, or not serve Him at all. But love without rules is not love. Rules without consequences are not rules. Consequences without fairness would undermine the very rules they are supposed to support.

God, in fairness, will bring a reward "to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12). "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Eccl. 12:14).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, this is not a fair reproduction of what was said. You left out what I actually said. By leaving out what MM was commenting on, and then making your own comment on something else I said, which MM did not quote, you are giving the false impression that MM quoted something I did not say, which is not fair.

This is what I said, which MM quoted:



*This* is the idea (not that God "tortures") that I have asserted you are advocating. I've asserted this a number of times, and asked you repeatedly to correct it if it not accurate, and have commented that I hope it is not accurate, as I think it's a dreadful idea, but up to now you have made no comment. Do you now wish to do so? I hope you do. If this is misrepresenting your idea, please let me know in what way it is doing so, and I will glad stop characterizing it this way.

Regarding "torture," surely you can see the difference between spanking a child and setting it on fire.

Regarding the time element, what I've said is that Ellen White, in describing the false view of those who believe the soul is immortal, termed it "unceasing tortures." I've made the comment that if the only difference in your view and theirs is the time element, then you are believing in "tortures which cease." So I've asked you what is the difference in your view, and the false view, other than the time element.

GC, I don't see that you responded to my point here, and I can't recall you're having done so elsewhere. My point is that she describes the false view as "unceasing tortures." If the only difference between your view, and the false view she describes is the time element, then your view could be characterized as "tortures which cease." So I'm asking you how your view differs from the false view, in some way other than the time element.

Regarding the punishment of the wicked, I have made no suggestion that the punishments will be equal, so I don't know why you are discussing this.

I haven't been following this discussion but, as I see it, there is little doubt that hell will be a place of torture, the main one being the mental torture. Many who believe in "unceasing tortures," including some Catholic exponents, don't even believe in a hell of fire.

You didn't address my point. Since one tiny sin is enough to cause people to die instantly of emotional anguish, why do you think resurrected sinners are able to endure millions of major sins in their dilapidated state without dying instantly after encountering the first sin? Obviously their ability to suffer so will be unnatural. Not even Jesus was able to suffer so without supernatural aid. And He managed to suffer for every sin ever committed in just 6 hours. Why do you think it will take some sinners several days to suffer for their sins?

GC, has Tom misunderstood what you're saying? Are you saying God will engulf the wicked in fire and then keep them alive supernaturally so they can be punished in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness? Never mind, for the moment, that Tom said "for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days".

PS - For the record, I haven't ruled out the idea that God will engulf the wicked with fire from above and from below and then keep them alive supernaturally so that they can be punished according to their sinfulness. Neither the Bible nor the SOP says so one way or the other. Both simply say literal fire will be present.

Tom,

If you would look carefully at what you were saying, you'll not misunderstand what I am saying in response.


It appears to me that you are saying what you say you are not saying.


Until you cease using the term "torture" in such a pejorative manner, I don't see a need to respond.

Suffice it to say-- if you see hell as casting God as a tyrant, you have an incorrect view of both.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.