God and Punishment

[Rosebud]

Well, I admit I'm still getting my feet wet, but so far the water seems nice enough.

I agree.

The old avatar with the gladiator sandals and painted toe nails was much, much better.

I disagree.

Thanks, I worked hard on it.

So..... you going to use this as your avatar now or are you still committed to your banana thing?

[wuapinmon]

I agree.



I disagree.



So..... you going to use this as your avatar now or are you still committed to your banana thing?

My banana thing is part of me; I love it and we shall never part. It's way more than a commitment; I'd said that it's attached to me.

[Babs]

My banana thing is part of me; I love it and we shall never part. It's way more than a commitment; I'd said that it's attached to me.

Is it really that appealing?

[Rosebud]

My banana thing is part of me; I love it and we shall never part. It's way more than a commitment; I'd said that it's attached to me.

But why is it frozen right now?

[wuapinmon]

Is it really that appealing?

It's not a question of it being appealing. I mean really, what's so appealing about a banana? They're all genetic copies of each other. I mean there's varieties, Cavendish, Ladyfinger, Creole. But, ultimately, they all taste the same and serve the same purpose. I just figure I'll honor the basest thing there is and celebrate the kitschy side of life. I think I might go unwrap one right now. ¿Dónde está mi costilla?

But why is it frozen right now?

No, it's not frozen. It's just a very rigid banana. Sometimes they forget to gas them with ethylene before they sell them, so they don't covert starch to sugar as quickly, and they stay really hard for awhile (so hard it seems like they might burst sometimes), and then, seemingly overnight, they go limp as they lose turgidity. Eventually, if you neglect one long enough, it will go completely flaccid and waste away. That's a rotten way to go. You can't imagine the change in flavor gas makes.

[Rosebud]

Okay... we've made peace and played our little (pronounced like "widdle" in a saccharinely sweet voice ) role for everyone's entertainment. Now what?

(Well written Wuap.... thanks for trying to lighten things up around here.... sincerely.)

[Babs]

It's not a question of it being appealing. I mean really, what's so appealing about a banana? They're all genetic copies of each other. I mean there's varieties, Cavendish, Ladyfinger, Creole. But, ultimately, they all taste the same and serve the same purpose. I just figure I'll honor the basest thing there is and celebrate the kitschy side of life. I think I might go unwrap one right now. ¿Dónde está mi costilla?

No, the correct answer is that bananas are inherently apeelable.

[wuapinmon]

No, the correct answer is that bananas are inherently apeelable.

I think it's better when the peel is left on, but pulled back to the end. Your hands don't get stuff on them that way. Peels are very slippery.

[Babs]

I think it's better when the peel is left on, but pulled back to the end. Your hands don't get stuff on them that way. Peels are very slippery.

Who is that masquerading as cookie in your avatar? Everybody knows Cookie loves fruits and veggies. Haven't you ever heard the "healthy food" rap?

[Rosebud]

Sorry I hijacked your thread OrangeUte.

i appreciate the feedback... i just have some thoughts on the subject i would like to share - more of the muddying the waters kind of thoughts, but for some reason, this is an interesting topic to me.

I can tell that you've put a lot of thought into this and I'm interested in hearing more of what you have to say.

But, what if he punishes you for your sins and then you decide you want to repent - then has God made you suffer in vain because he has supposedly provided a savior to who has suffered for all of our sins. these two concepts seem to collide and are at odds with each other.

My opinion is that God does not personally punish us for our sins or make us suffer. We do suffer, but IMO it is sacrilegious to blame our suffering on God. I believe that two of the purposes of the atonement are: 1) to help us with temporal suffering and 2) to save us from eternal suffering.

also, what did God do to punish Joseph Smith for the 116 pages? I imagine that Joseph freaked out and was stressed, and that therefore felt like God had withdrawn the holy spirit from him... is losing the spirit all that occurred, or was it more than that - was the punishment that God took away the gift of translation for awhile meanwhile knowing that he would return the gift to joseph as soon as the penance had been made... again, because of the suffering of jesus, isn't that punishment really just punishment in vain - so that it's essentially punishment for punishment's sake?

Maybe our comprehension of the story reflects Joseph's comprehension of the story rather than truth about God's actions, motives or um..... authoritarian parenting style?

i guess what i'm asking is that if god can punish us for our sins, what is the purpose of the atonement?

I wonder if this idea that God punishes us for sins is really little more than humans projecting their own parenting through the use of punishment onto God. IMO, the atonement is proof that God's goal is to help us with/save us from suffering, not place it upon us.

i am always troubled by the scripture in d&c 19:4 "And surely every man must arepent or bsuffer, for I, God, am endless."

This troubles me too. I think the positive side of it is, though, that the atonement makes repentance possible and therefore God takes suffering from us whenever possible. God's goal then is to reduce our suffering, not compound it.

is there an option to sin as much as you want and then suffer the required suffering and that will satisfy the requirements of justice? is that suffering actually ongoing here on earth, or is it suffereing that occurs after death but before judgment.

19:20 says "Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I ahumble you with my almighty power; and that you bconfess your sins, lest you suffer these cpunishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have dtasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit."

So, it seems that withdrawal of the spirit is actually a small portion of punishment, but what happens if one pays for his own sins and then repents - that is the part that i keep getting hung up on because it seems like that suffering by man would make the atonement unnecessary in their own lives - punishment for punishment's sake?

even if god withdrawing his spirit is giving us a taste of the punishment christ suffered, it seems a tad bit arbitrary given that christ has already suffered for all of the demands of justice. i know that often, when i sin, i don't feel much different before i sinned than i do after... i may feel kind of silly for what i did, but i certainly don't feel abandoned or empty, and i can honestly say that i don't have a void that feels distasteful as described in the D&C. so, i guess at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters in terms of this "punishment" in the flesh argument is that God works in mysterious ways.

I don't really mean to go off on a tangent here, but I wonder how much of what we define as sin really matches what God defines as sin. In our culture we may equate behavior x with sin while another culture equates behavior y with sin. It's possible, then, that we may be confusing guilt that comes from our cultural ideologies with punishment from God.

D&C 132:26 says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the aHoly Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they bcommit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be cdelivered unto the buffetings of dSatan unto the day of eredemption, saith the Lord God."

i remember my mission president telling us that D&C 132:26 was proof that spencer w. kimball was actually suffering for his own sins when he had difficulty with his voice from surgeries (cancer?) and that only the very righteous who had entered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage could actually suffer for their own sins as a tribute to how much they love the savior...

That makes no sense to me, and ends up raising all sorts of questiosn about the atonement... that position says that the savior suffered in vain - or maybe he didn't really suffer for all of mankind's sins so the truly righteous have to make up for the slack... why would god have his only begotten son suffer in vain?

Sounds like maybe your mission president was preaching vestiges of blood atonement or something. As far as I know such doctrines have been left behind in contemporary LDS thought.... probably because they raise too many questions similar to the one you have posed.

i know so much in doctrine is a matter of faith, but this one is hard for me to wrap my head around - then again, maybe the answer is to just stop trying and just move forward with it making no sense but with a hope that one day it will all come together.

I don't think so. IMO, your questions seem on point and valuable. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I like to believe that God wants us to ask questions and look for answers. Your thoughts have been positive for me anyway.

[myboynoah]

RB, I missed a few days, but it's good to see that you've been posting again, especially with that avatar! Please post more. (And then some more.)

A simple thank you will suffice.

[Rosebud]

A simple thank you will suffice.

Thank you myboynoah.... I owe you one.

[OrangeUte]

This troubles me too. I think the positive side of it is, though, that the atonement makes repentance possible and therefore God takes suffering from us whenever possible. God's goal then is to reduce our suffering, not compound it.

this is exactly my problem with the concept of God's punishment in the flesh concept...

the mission pres was definitely teaching vestiges of doctrine. he even used to teach that africans (i served in south africa) were cursed with the mark of cain, etc. it was a very destructive 3 years in that country under his rule. his successor was kinder and gentler and did a much better job of actually loving people into the church instead of scaring them there...

all of this talk of punishment seems to me, ultimately, a measure or tactic to scare people or guilt them into thinking or believing a certain way. it's hellfire and brimstone at its finest.

[Rosebud]

this is exactly my problem with the concept of God's punishment in the flesh concept...

the mission pres was definitely teaching vestiges of doctrine. he even used to teach that africans (i served in south africa) were cursed with the mark of cain, etc. it was a very destructive 3 years in that country under his rule. his successor was kinder and gentler and did a much better job of actually loving people into the church instead of scaring them there...

Wow.... it sounds like you must have had a lot to think about serving a mission in that environment. If you ever feel so inclined, please share some of your experiences and what you learned from them around here. I'd be totally interested.

all of this talk of punishment seems to me, ultimately, a measure or tactic to scare people or guilt them into thinking or believing a certain way. it's hellfire and brimstone at its finest.

I agree. I'm pretty repulsed when people use fear and guilt to control others' beliefs and actions. It's especially wrong, IMO, when it's done in the name of God and/or religion. It's pretty clear to me that people who use these tactics aren't acting for God and it's really unfortunate when they manage to work themselves into ecclesiastical leadership positions. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

Christ set such a different example. He had power, but instead of using it to force, control, punish or cause guilt, he used it to serve and love. The two styles are so different that it's frankly pretty easy to discern between them.