According to GC 541-543, the judgment is for their own benefit, and God uses the principles of kindness, mercy and love.



I asked why you think this.



Did the suffering cause the death, or did the same thing that caused the suffering cause the death?



The idea that I'm most interested in is whether the wicked will be set on fire, like a torch, or Molotov cocktail, screaming in agony, supernaturally kept alive so they can excruciating pain can continue, in order to make them pay for their sins.

I don't understand how your answer addresses my question. Do you think the resurrected wicked will be physically able to survive the accumulating emotional agony of millions of sins without dying before they pay for all their sins? If so, do you think they will need supernatural assistance? If not, why not? Please elaborate.

Which is worse in your mind, Tom? That is, God setting sinners on fire and keeping them alive supernaturally so they can pay for all their sins? Or, God exposing sinners to His unveiled presence so that they can suffer for all their sins?

BTW, you haven't explained how the wicked will be able to physically survive the unveiled presence of God long enough to pay for all their sins. What will prevent them from dying immediately rather than suffering for many hours or many days?

I don't think you're thinking of this in the right way. I think the judgment will reveal reality to the wicked. What is revealed will include their sins, the times they turned away from Christ, and so forth. They will see their life as it really was, and what they see will cause them suffering depending upon how much light they have had and what they have done.



I think these are two bad ideas you have. Why does it matter which bad idea is worse than the other?



I don't think this is looking at things in the right way, as I explained above. Consider the following:



This tells us that heaven would be torture for the wicked. The judgment reveals reality to the wicked. They recognize this, and voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. Before making this decision, there is suffering involved, in proportion to the light they have had and the sin they have committed, as reality is made clear to them.

Ellen White says,

"They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, 'according to their works,' but finally ending in the second death." {GC 544.2}

Is this how you see things? Notice she mentions the "duration" of the punishment, and in GC 673.1 she says,

"Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days."

Yes, I believe the wicked will suffer in proportion to their sin, and the light they've had. I don't think this is an imposed or arbitrary punishment, but the result of the judgment. That is, the revelation of the truth causes "weeping and gnashing of teeth." The wicked realize the sins they've committed, in their true bearing, as well as what they've lost. Those who have had greater light will realize this more clearly, and thus suffer more.

I think the intensity is a key point. It's not that God has some fires which are turned up hotter than for others, but the suffering varies in intensity according to the light a person has had.

How does that apply to the "supernaturally alive to suffer" concept? The reality of the lost is that they have separated themselves from the Source of life; hence, they die. But how can they stay alive to suffer this revelation of reality, some of them for days, while apart from God, the Source of life? Are they kept alive by their own, innate "life force" (even though they have already been dead for a thousand years)? Or are they kept alive by God?

But how are they alive, after being dead for a thousand years, in order to "suffer in proportion to their sin"? By what power do they have life?

Now you sound like you're saying what some of us have been saying all along. But you claimed to us that this was "torture" or "excruciating pain" and that it was unlike God because of its duration. Yet you also believe in the longer durations the same as I?

(Shaking my head.)

I think the REAL difference in your view and mine comes down to this: you do not believe that sin is so bad. It is not "exceedingly" evil, and therefore neither deserves a severe punishment, nor receives such.

Additionally, you appear to see Inspiration as being incorrect in one point. When God is said to have mercy, there are balancing statements which say His wrath will be "unmixed with mercy." Yet you believe this is false, right? You believe God will still have mercy, am I right?

While I believe in mercy, and that God is merciful, there is nothing in the text to indicate His wrath will be lessened on account of mercy. The punishment will be what was deserved, not some comfortable, painless death. Neither will God be a tyrant. The punishment will not exceed what was deserved, as if dealt in a spiteful spirit.

The following deals with the final plagues: "They will drink the cup of his wrath, unmixed with mercy." {CTBH 155.2}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I didn't claim, I asked. I've asked for clarification. Over and over I've asked if you believe God will set people on fire for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain. If this isn't what you think, please just answer my question, and clarify.

Regarding the suffering being of different durations, I've said repeatedly that the wicked suffering according to their sin, and the light they've had. Clearly this isn't the same for every individual.



What's up with this? Where have I said even one thing to indicate I would think the suffering of the wicked would be the same for all?



I would say the reverse. You see sin as basically innocuous of itself, meaning that God must kill those who practice it, since it doesn't have the power do destroy itself.



On the contrary, because it is exceeding evil, it does not need artificially imposed sanctions against those who practice it.



This object applies as much to your view as mine. You don't believe God is merciful, so therefore you disagree with inspiration on this point (that the principles of kindness, mercy, and love are involved in the judgment).

Certainly setting someone on fire is not kind.

Also, you seem to disagree on another point, which is that the judgment is for the benefit of the wicked. I don't see how your view harmonizes with this.



I just quoted from Ellen White, who said the principles of kindness, mercy and judgment will be exercised. I didn't say anything beyond this regarding mercy.



Your idea is that the punishment will be setting them on fire, like a torch, right? Why would this be deserved? Wouldn't some other more human means of punishment be possible? Is this how you would punish someone? Is it your view that the reason you wouldn't do this (assuming you wouldn't) but God does is because He is greater than you are?



Again, GC, all I did was quote from GC 542. I don't know why you're taking issue with what I said, regarding mercy, given all I did was quote from here.