Why is because they prefer death to living with God. How is by choosing death over God. DA 764 says this, right after what I quoted. "They that hate me love (choose) death" (love here has to do with preference, as when Christ said spoke who didn't hate their parents).



I didn't say God was their only source of life. I quoted from DA 764. Do you doubt this is true? Let's start here.



DA 764 says that had God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. Where there is sin, the inevitable result is misery, suffering and death. The wicked choose to cling to sin. In so doing they are choosing the misery, suffering and death which come with it.

This shouldn't be difficult to fathom, because sin is based on the principle of self. If one puts self first, these are the things which follow that choice.



God reveals the truth to them in the judgment.



No, it's not a physical thing.



Just to be clear, I didn't say this. Ty said this. I quoted Kevin, who gave a nice explanation of why. Did you read Kevin's post?



Why should it?



Because that's how long the judgment process takes for them. The more sin in their lives, the more light refused, the more there is to consider.



I can only think of one possibility. What possibilities can you think of? (Consider the DA 764 quote, cited above. It speaks about the source of life).



Please quote what you found unclear.



I'm much more tired than unwilling.



Here's the principle I've said I think applies:



I think this principle applied, and that a natural disaster of some sort was involved, which God permitted to occur, for the reasons explained here.



What I've suggested is, before getting into these questions of God's killing, that it would be better to study God's character, in the light of what Jesus revealed. I think this would be *much* more fruitful than simply asking the same dozens of questions over and over and over again.

Why not consider the underlying principles that are involved, figure out what those are, and then, after that's been considered, look at individual cases?



I think the GC 36 principle always applies. I've said this, many times. This should have answered your question.



I disagree. Ty Gibson, and many others, have the same view as I do regarding the final judgment, although they see these other events differently than I do. So it's not necessary to have the same ideas on the events you mentioned to have the same ideas on the other.



This is an example of the character of God difference we have that I mentioned above. I think a study of Jesus Christ should clarify this question.



Because it's obvious. God is the source of life. What else could the answer be? Why would you ask such a question?

You've asked the question about why they die gradually several dozen times, and I've answered it several dozen times. I really don't understand why you don't remember what I've written, especially when it's so many times.

What I've said is that they don't die immediately then for the same reason they don't die immediately now. If God left them to reap the full result of their sin, they would perish. If God left them to reap the full result of their sin before the issues of the judgment had been completed, then they would be dead, which would defeat the purpose.



No it doesn't (sound like this).



This is because I've explained what I believe regarding this. It's straight from GC 541-543.



No, they don't. Why do you think they do? (my observations assume what you're saying).



Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves is what I've said.



Yes, I think sin will cause their death. Death is the inevitable result of sin. Different people could die for different reasons, but whatever the reason, sin will be behind it.

I've written quite a lot in answering this. Saying I've avoided answering a question that I've written dozens of paragraphs regarding is rather ridiculous.

You should recall that I said on a number of occasions that I thought DA 764 described this better than any other place I knew, and that I didn't want to go beyond what was said there. Do you recall this?

I guess I'm a little confused here. You see, I thought acts were evil or not. I also thought acts were part of character. You would suggest that it's not the acts, but who is doing them that determines whether they're evil or not. So, Satan could do the same thing that God does and it would be evil, whereas what God does would be good. Good is evil, evil is good.

So, if we are only to be like God in some things, in character, who should we be like in acts? Not Satan. He does the same things God does. Should we be like our own selves? But, wasn't Lucifer trying to do that in Heaven? How do we determine what things of God we should be like and in what things not to be like Him? Who should be our pattern to follow after? What should be our basis? If someone should suggest I do a certain act, how can I be sure it is right. Following this idea, I guess we can't question if it's something that Jesus would do, for He may do things we shouldn't. Do something that He would not do(?) or something that is right? How do we know?

See, this sounds very confusing. Do you think this confusion is what resulted in the past (and present) religious killings?

Congratulations on your success on other forums. I wish you were more transparent on this forum. We all stand to learn a lot from you.

Kland, the following insight addresses your question and comment:


God can do things that would be sinful for us to do.

(I'm not familiar with the abbreviation LDE)
That quote does sound like what I understood asygo as saying. I don't see how it answers my above questions of who should we emulate in actions, how do we know what is right.

Thank you for your kind comment.

As I wrote, perhaps the problem is not me. The question as to my transparency seems to be dependent upon whether one agrees with more or not. For example, ask kland if he thinks I'm transparent, and see what he says.

I think "LDE" stands for "Last Day Events," and is a compilation.

Take this as one exhibit on how your idea of transparency is not the same as mine. Transparency is not determined by the volume of output, but the clarity of communication. Obviously, what I thought you believe is not what you believe.

Now, I will ask a very specific, pointed question to see if we can clarify things. Please don't make me dig through thousands of posts to find your answer because you can easily answer this in a few words.

Consider the wicked humans that died during Christ's second coming. If Jesus just left them forever, never came back with the New Jerusalem after the Millennium, and completely separated Himself from these dead wicked, would these dead wicked experience misery or suffering (including mental anguish) like they will when Jesus comes for the Judgment? IOW, would they experience misery or suffering (including mental anguish) without God's presence and glory? IOW2, if all they had was sin, no God, would they experience the same misery or suffering (including mental anguish)? Or would they just remain dead?

Tom agrees that you know what he would say. So, was I right? Would he, indeed, say that "God commanded the people to throw stones and shoot arrows"?

Right. But you and I don't seem to agree on what that context is, and when it applies.

Furthermore, you believe that God uses force under certain circumstances. For example, you believe that the wicked would rather be covered by a mountain that see Christ's face and glory. Right? But they don't get what they want, do they? They are forced, against their desire, to see God's glory in its fullness.