GC, I don't think Tom believes it will be a painless death. He believes it will exceed the agony of being burned alive.

I agree with this assessment. Not painless, but agony worse than being burned alive. All made possible by God raising them from the peace of death, and showing them His glory.

Sort of contradicts Tom's kind and loving and merciful view of judgment, doesn't it!

Are you misrepresenting my position on purpose, or is it accidental? In either case, please do what I've asked you to do on countless occasions, which is to quote something I've actually said.

Please bear in mind Ellen White's counsel that we should not look to make a brother to be an offender for a word. That is, you appear to me to be deliberately looking for a way to put the most negative representation possible and the ideas that I'm sharing.

I believe that God does absolutely nothing with the intention or purpose for causing the wicked to suffer, and that He is in no way responsible for their suffering, in the judgment or any other time. Their suffering is completely against God's will, and only because they refuse to accept God's will.

Just to be clear, I disagree with both MM's characterization of my position, and with your comment here. It appears that there is a profound desire to express things in a way that has God responsible for the suffering of the wicked. I don't understand this idea, nor the motivation to express it, and I by no means share it.

Was there something inaccurate about my statement?

Let's dissect that and see if you disagree with any of it. I was fully confident that I was accurately representing your view. But if not, I want to find out where I was wrong.

Not painless

Do you believe it will be painful for the lost?

agony worse than being burned alive

Do you believe the agony of the lost will be worse than physical fire?

made possible by God raising them from the peace of death

Could any of this happen to the wicked if God does not raise them from the dead?

made possible by God showing them His glory

Could any of this happen to the wicked if God does not show them His glory?

Based on your posts on various threads, I expect you will answer Yes to the first two, and No to the last two. Is that correct?

Again, the "profound desire" is to express things as they are.

I think it was either misleading, or apt to be so misunderstood. You wrote:



As stated, the implication looks to be that God is responsible for their agony. I was wishing to make clear that I don't believe this is the case. If you also believe God is not responsible, I think the statement could be better worded to make clear that this is what you believe.

"However", "such measures"? What such measures? Do you mean acting violently?

"Destroying sinners", "dealing justly"?

It sounds to me like you contradicted your statement that no one is advocating a violent God. Could you explain?

Tom said God is not violent.
You are in disagreement with him, suggest quotes which indicate violence, say God directly plays a part in the wicked's suffering.

Then, your misrepresentation of Tom's comments state it being worse than being burned alive.

Then:
With exclamation point. With ecstasy.

So, I don't see how my question that you feel we don't have a violent enough view of God is absurd. It seems a very reasonable conclusion. You strongly disagree with "Tom's kind and loving and merciful view of judgment". I'm not sure what else one would conclude. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

Could you concisely state what you disagree with? Finish the sentence as you think I should have regarding our view of God:
MM, I hear you saying that Tom and I don't ......(have what kind of view about God).....


I'm a little confused here, too. Would you be suggesting that God is violent towards sinners at the Second Advent, but not at the final judgment?

I would agree that it was misleading and gives the wrong implication of what Tom was saying.

It was the way you said it, and I think the key is, "All made possible".