kland,

Who said "destroy" equals "violent?" Can you find a dictionary which supports this? How about the Bible? What you imply is simply not honest to the language.

Let's suppose, for a moment, that someone encounters a stash of guns in an enemy arsenal. They are loaded with bullets, and the door to the gun shed was left open with innocent children playing nearby. If the finder chooses to destroy the guns in order to protect the innocent and to save lives, was this "violent?" If so, how so?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

True, you didn't actually say it, but you quoted Ty saying it and then said you are in total agreement. Also, you believe God will make sinners revisit their sins in judgment. The result is they will experience suffering that exceeds being burned alive. Here's what you quoted:

You have not made your point of view clear. Do you think the pain and agony you describe will happen if God were to remain absent or continue to veil the light of His glory? Or, is the presence of the light of the glory of God necessary for them to suffer and to die?

Ok, maybe you are correct. What about the other three things. Or "destroy" as you used it in context? Would someone reading my and your comments conclude since you did not address the other three things that they were correct? For example, what are "such measures"?

Burning people alive is certainly violent.





This speaks of the "violence of fire." What's been said is not simply that God destroys, but that God will burn people alive.

MM, you wrote this:



I don't think you were being very forthright here. You write "according to Tom" and justify this by something a third person said, only the third person didn't even say what you're claiming!

Ty said absolutely nothing about experiencing suffering that exceeds being burned alive. To get from "the flame of infinite love" which "burns man internal fire hotter and more terrible than any literal flame upon the flesh," to your idea is a big stretch, and to conclude this is "according to Tom" is not cricket!

Ty said, "The blazing light of infinite love will clash in their souls with the dark ugliness of sin." He said this flame would be more terrible than any physical flame would be. I explained to you how I understood this, yet in spite of my explanation, you went ahead and wrote "according to Tom" something which was diametrically opposed to the explanation I gave.

What do you mean "remain absent"? Was God absent previously? By the "light of His glory" do you mean "the truth of His character"?



In regards to suffering, clearly not, since people suffer now. In regards to "die," what specifically do you mean? Specifically, in the past, I recall you're saying that the death part of the second death is no different than the first death, so "die" here would mean the same thing as "expire" if I'm understanding you correctly.

Sorry to have to ask for clarifications to your questions, but your understanding of these terms is different than mine, and you're making certain assumption in your questions that I don't necessarily agree with. So when you say "the light of the glory fo God" and "die" I want to know if you have in mind what you understand these things to mean, or what I do.

This description leads me to conclude the wicked will suffer more than if they were burned alive. Do you agree?