GC, I don't see how your question fits into this topic. Do you see that David did something akin to setting someone on fire to be burned alive for hours?

I've made the following point quite a number of times to you:



I don't recall your having responded to this, although this is clearly on topic.

Tom,

I have answered your question before, but perhaps the quote above will help to answer it more. I agree with Mrs. White on this point. She expressly said that even through the punishment of the wicked, God's character thus revealed will cause all to admire Him.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You can evade the Bible texts, by claiming they are not relevant, but no one will evade the coming day of reckoning. What will you think of God when you see the flames doing exactly what Mrs. White predicted...for days? She spoke under inspiration, and I have no reason to reject her words as you do. Therefore, I am obliged to believe that which may be beyond my current understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

In order to have some fairness in this discussion, it is important to distinguish between two representations of hell: 1) the false teaching of an eternally-burning hell; and 2) the true concept of hell.

Mrs. White speaks of both of these. In this thread, however, we are addressing the true (i.e. what will hell really be like). It would be unfair, and irresponsible scholarship to apply what Mrs. White expressly teaches is false to her representation of the true picture, would you agree?

If you will agree with the above, which I believe you do, then please find me at least one statement where Mrs. White is teaching the true picture of hell and terms the burning as "torture." I have only seen this term in reference to the false teaching of eternally-burning, immortal souls in hell.

If you do not find such a statement in reference to the true, please do not represent those of us who accept Mrs. White's teaching on the matter as believing that God will "torture" the wicked. Such is most certainly an erroneous view, and I believe it is unfair to speak of God in such a light.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Sin is not what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. It is the radiant fire light of God's glorious presence that will consume and destroy them with their sins. The absence of the radiant fire light of God's glorious presence is the reason why sinners do not die of emotional anguish when they sin. After years of sinning, however, they harden their hearts beyond being able to die of emotional anguish. They become dead to sin and incapable of dying of emotional anguish.

No one here is advocating this idea. Please stop acting as if it is true.

In the beginning the smallest sin would have caused A&E to suffer intense emotional agony ending in instant death. And yet you believe the wicked will somehow be able to suffer the combined emotional agony of millions of sins for many, many days without dying immediately. How is this physically possible? They are resurrected in their previous state of decay and disease. Their physical ability to endure emotional hardship is greatly diminished, if not nonexistent. Nevertheless, you believe they are capable of enduring unimaginable agony for many, many days without dying instantly. Do you think God works to keep them alive supernaturally so that they can suffer? If so, what does this say about God's character?

I don't recall seeing your response, nor do I see it here. I'm asking what would God be like if He set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain for many hours or many days, etc. What would He be like?



I asked you how the text is relevant. How is it relevant?

GC, I write tons of stuff that you ignore, and don't complain about it. I have to bring up things 5 or 6 times to get a response, and even then sometimes I don't. Here there's one thing I didn't answer because I don't see the relevance of it, and you're trying to make a case out of it, when you're not even half as thorough in responding to my posts as I am to yours.



She never said God would set the wicked on fire, to burn for many days or many hours. You're reading this into the text. There are many besides myself who don't read the text the way you do.

The question I have is how you can even conceive of the possibility that God would act in this way, given His character. When Jesus Christ was asked if the Samaritans should be set on fire, He responded they the disciples did not know of what spirit they were. The SOP points out, in speaking of this passage, that it is the spirit of Satan to be disposed to cause harm to those who are not in harmony with one's work. And this would just be to destroy quickly, not to cause excruciating pain for many hours or days.



This is puerile. I can only respond in kind: "I have no reason to reject her words as you do."

Under inspiration both she and the Scriptures present a picture of God's character which is diametrically opposed to the picture you are portraying. She wrote that "cruelty is Satanic." Either you are rejecting her words her, or see nothing cruel in setting someone on fire for many hours or many days at a time.



What specifically is beyond your current understanding?

Tom, your preferred view does not dictate reality. I may wish to wear rose-colored glasses, but the glasses will not remove the actual blemishes of a reality that I may not wish to see. Sin is an evil thing. Very evil. The universe has been "tortured" by it for six thousand years. Jesus was "tortured" on the cross, because of your sins and mine. The angels and God have been mocked, despised, ridiculed, rejected, spurned and blasphemed. For six thousand years. What's a few days' worth of vengeance in comparison to this? Very merciful justice. A few hours or days? God is merciful. That is "what He would be like."


It presents the same principle of responsibility that we are discussing here.

Yes, Tom, you write plenty. Sometimes I don't bother to tell you that I have tried answering something before but you appeared to not wish to understand it, or perhaps even hear it. So I do not always respond. Also, sometimes I agree with your points, or do not disagree enough to bother responding. I may have less time than some, and so I choose which things to respond to. My apologies if this offends you.

This is but evidence that you haven't been reading the quotes I've posted. Even a child would understand her meaning clearly, as long as he or she had not been predisposed to reject such as "cruel," "inhumane," and "impossible" based on a God-can-do-no-harm-and-will-not-use-force-even-to-put-a-stop-to-sin belief.

Because He has revealed that He WILL do this.

Indeed. Jesus' spirit and that of God in executing justice will not be the same spirit the disciples showed. Not at all.

Context is everything. The situation is different here. If it was ok for the New Testament believers to abolish circumcision, why did God send an angel with drawn sword to slay Moses' on account of his uncircumcised son? Double standard? Fickle? Two-faced? NOT AT ALL. I feel like the accusations you throw at me (and/or at God) as a result of these things are just like those accusations that any infidel could throw out for the "inconsistencies" they see in the Bible like this. What's the difference between upholding that law, and then dismissing it? By the way, did Jesus ever reveal through His life that the rite of circumcision was no longer binding? Then can we truthfully say that everything was revealed through Jesus' life?

How much have you learned from Mrs. White? Dare I suggest that she has taught you many things that are not in the Gospels? or would this contradict what she said about Jesus having revealed everything through His life?

You are misinterpreting. You misinterpret me, put the "portrayal" which I have presented here in a bad light--when really that is coming directly from inspiration. Mrs. White is telling us more than you are accepting. Yes, cruelty is Satanic. God is not cruel. God is righteous, faithful, and just. And God is JEALOUS. Did you know that? "But jealousy is a sin???" "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Ex. 34:14) Is God a sinner? Should I refuse to accept this text of the Bible just because it goes so strongly against my preconceptions? No. I accept it. I accept that it does not mean the same to God as it means to us.

The answers to the "Why?" questions. I don't have those. I don't know "Why?" God does all of this. But I believe what I am told just the same. Do I have any reason to doubt His Word?

You have not given me any reason, and even if you should, I would likely still choose to believe what God has said. If He tells us that Satan will burn for many days, why should I doubt that?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This isn't true. GC is advocating the idea. Arnold says he's leaning toward it. Neither have suggested I've misrepresented their thoughts. They've been defending this idea as true.



As their lives are reviewed, their sins are revealed. They are made aware of the times when Jesus was calling them, but they didn't heed His voice, and so forth.



I don't think God does anything supernatural to enable the wicked to suffer. What they suffer is due to their own choice, not something God imposes upon them, nor does God act supernaturally to augment their capacity to suffer.

In GC 536, and thereabout, Ellen White speaks of the false view of hell. She considers it cruel, and speaks of "eternal tortures." Now if the only thing you see different between the view that she is representing and the view you hold is the time element, then everything she says about the view she is representing holds to your view as well, excluding the time element.

I've asked on a number of occasions what's different between that view and the view being suggested by you and others, aside from the time element, and haven't gotten any response. If you would like to put forth how your view is different, I'm happy to hear that.



GC 536 speaks of "eternal tortures." If the only difference between the view she presents there and what you believe happens is the element of time, then you believe in "non-eternal tortures." If you further assert that the true view is not "torture," then the view you are presenting cannot be the true view.



The term is "eternal tortures." If you don't believe the view she represents is incorrect, except for the time element, then the description of "tortures" applies.



Then please tell me how your view is different than the view she is representing as false, other than the time element.



I agree that it is unfair to speak of God in the light of an erroneous view, and believe the view you are presenting is erroneous, because it looks like the view Ellen White represents as false, except for the time element. I believe the time element is not the only thing false in the view she describes as "eternal tortures."