Sadistic God?

[marts1]

I will gladly give you the last word, I'm done.

[Cassiopeia]

I will gladly give you the last word, I'm done.

It's not about having the last word, marts1.

It's about understanding and being understood. I have a very strong passion for the truth concerning the nature of our Father in Heaven and it is a subject on which I cannot be silent.

[Dravin]

In all my years as a member I have never seen anyone snatch a scripture like that from it's context to drive home eternal damnation. It is always tempered with words of hope and love.

Is not the context of that scripture that Jesus himself talked about hell to work upon the hearts of men?

Jesus himself didn't pretend there were no consequences for disobedience and the rejection of his gospel, he even went so far as to purposely use strong language. I don't see why we should pretend it is otherwise. There is both hope through Christ's mercy and horrible consequences for rejecting that mercy. To bury our understanding of one in favor of the other is not good. By understanding our situation without the mercy of Christ in the next life we come to better appreciate and understand the gloriousness of that mercy. This is not to say one has to talk about them at a 1:1 ratio, but to never talk about our disposition if we don't follow or obey Christ isn't good. And to refuse to discuss it because 'it doesn't sound nice' is silly.

Talk about how Christ has saved us is flat without an understanding of what he saved us from.

Which is why I'm most demented in pointing out that we do not often see people talking about it this way. We are always counseled to focus on the good and loving things about our faith.

Yeah, tis not like anyone has mentioned that divine love doesn't remove the necessity of obdience and that if you aren't obedient you can't abide the appropriate kingdom of glory... oh wait: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Love and Law

Just an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ during General Conference.

Is this reticence not even stronger in LDS circles? I find it difficult to believe the doctrine would be abused as a means of controlling people with fear, in your wards.

Generally it only comes up to counter the notation that because God loves us so much that there can be no consequences for anything we do in this life.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Dravin

[Cassiopeia]

Dravin, I am not saying that people don't have to be obedient. I will say this one more time...and if I am not understood, I will simply let it go.

The original topic was if God is sadistic. I am directly responding to that issue. No, God is not sadistic. Only mankind chooses to emphasize things and make it seem that way.

And I've said, the way to encourage people to follow Christ's teachings is through love not through threats of damnation.

Yes, we as Latter-day Saints recognize there are consequences for unrepentant sin. However, harping on them is not an effective means of persuasion in the long run. If it were, our leaders would spend all of conference speaking in tones of condemnation and they do NOT.

They reach out to us in love and it is on rare occasion that I hear any of the scriptures that are of a harsher tone being used and when some are used they are always place into context with loving descriptions of how our Father wants us to avoid those consequences and it is NEVER made to appear that our Father is harsh in anyway.

[Cassiopeia]

Generally it only comes up to counter the notation that because God loves us so much that there can be no consequences for anything we do in this life.

AND I never said this.

If the best that you can do is twist my meaning and refuse to understand my words, I shall stop speaking to you.

[Dravin]

AND I never said this.

And I never said you did.

If the best that you can do is twist my meaning and refuse to understand my words, I shall stop speaking to you.

I can say the same about making up intents in others words. The world doesn't revolve around you, I was answering PC's question.

[Cassiopeia]

I can say the same about making up intents in others words. The world doesn't revolve around you, I was answering PC's question.

An ad hom attack from you? Really?

[Dravin]

Dravin, I am not saying that people don't have to be obedient. I will say this one more time...and if I am not understood, I will simply let it go.

Then why do you object to Ram's explanation of the importance of obedience in the next life and how our willingness to be obedient influences that which we are able to abide, thus explaining why not everyone will be in the Celestial Kingdom? And if your issue is with people making God out to be sadistic, Ram did no such thing. In fact the idea that he gives us that portion which we are able to accept is pretty much not sadistic.

The original topic was if God is sadistic. I am directly responding to that issue. No, God is not sadistic. Only mankind chooses to emphasize things and make it seem that way.

You were responding to Ram's post. Ram is not the OP. You took issue with his explanation of how God is not sadistic.

And I've said, the way to encourage people to follow Christ's teachings is through love not through threats of damnation.

Yep, and I'm not seeing where Ram attempted to persuade others to follow the teachings of Christ through threats of damnation.

They reach out to us in love and it is on rare occasion that I hear any of the scriptures that are of a harsher tone being used and when some are used they are always place into context with loving descriptions of how our Father wants us to avoid those consequences and it is NEVER made to appear that our Father is harsh in anyway.

Kinda like Ram's explanation.

[Dravin]

An ad hom attack from you? Really?

You'd have to define what weird version of ad hominem you're using before I can answer that, because it doesn't fit the standard definition. If we're using the standard definition, then no, not really.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1]

[personne]

[color = # 003366] Est-ce l'idée d'adorer un Dieu qui crée à la fois des milliards de spiritueux, puis crée une sensation de brûlure, de supplices, l'enfer sans fin pour mettre la majorité d'entre eux dans dérange personne d'autre? Peut-être que nous nous mai nous a dit qu'on va en enfer. T-elle dérange personne que tant d'entre nous seraient envoyés à brûler dans un tourment sans fin?

Quelqu'un at-il cessé de se demander comment les sadiques, il semble que Dieu voulait envoyer quelque chose, il a créé à brûler dans l'enfer des incendies pour l'éternité. Faut-il adorer un Dieu avec de telles tendances sadiques, ou sommes-nous mieux de chercher une nouvelle définition et la compréhension de Dieu? [/ COLOR]

[color = # 003366] [/ COLOR]

: huh: [/ QUOTE]Good evening, it is true that to believe in this God who can bring us in hell during the sentence is terrible. it is not bad it is the faith and I respect. The one that I learn is of the same kind, I think that the bad persons have to go to flames, but that those who committed suicide...here I do not know. Those who made things really bad. We have to regret for our faults, we are not perfected as him. I respect all the religions.

[Cassiopeia]

You'd have to define what weird version of ad hominem you're using before I can answer that, because it doesn't fit the standard definition. If we're using the standard definition, then no, not really.

I have sent you a pm...and I'd like to be directed to the board owners please. A personal attack like that is completely uncalled for.

[beefche]

Send a private message to pam, the head moderator.

[rameumptom]

I have to ask you both, what does it do for you to preach these things in this manner? First you, rameumpton--where do you get this idea that people who aren't worthy wouldn't be happy in the Celestial Kingdom and that they would be uncomfortable. I believe that statement to be a rationalization from a part of the LDS culture and not grounded in doctrinal fact. It is indeed a speculation, not truth. Not everyone who sins abhors righteousness, but rather perhaps those who knowingly sin against the spirit and they have their own place.

Amongst those who have not repented are good people who may not know how to repent or have the will to and then there are those who do not know they sin.

I get it from the scriptures. Mormon 9:4 tells us that the wicked would be happier with the damned souls in hell than dwelling with a just God. Alma 12 tells us that the wicked (which includes Telestial beings) would wish the rocks would cover them up rather than to stand in God's presence. I could offer more references, but I think these suffice.

As much as God loves us, he will not force us to dwell in in his presence. And if we do not emulate his glory, we would be miserable in his full presence and glory. Interestingly, the ancient text Ascension of Isaiah shows Christ descending to earth through the various levels of heaven. As he descends to each level, he empties himself of glory so those in that level can bear to be in his presence. IOW, Telestial beings could still see Christ and Father, but not in their full glory. And to dwell in the Celestial kingdom, where the full glory of God resides, would be a miserable experience for them.

Now, I've given you scriptural doctrine. I hope you are ready to retract your assumption?

[rameumptom]

It's not about having the last word, marts1.

It's about understanding and being understood. I have a very strong passion for the truth concerning the nature of our Father in Heaven and it is a subject on which I cannot be silent.

Which is fine, but are you certain you have a stronger/better understanding of God's nature than the rest of us? I've read the Book of Mormon over 75 times, the Bible dozens of times, etc. I've studied ancient Jewish and Christian texts for more than 30 years. I spend time every week in email discussions with some of the smartest LDS scholars around. Are you sure you know these things better than others here? Or perhaps do you suppose there is enough for all of us to learn something from each other?

[john doe]

I think we all need to take chill pills occasionally. Why, I took one just this morning and look how cool I am now!!!!!!

[Dravin]

I think we all need to take chill pills occasionally. Why, I took one just this morning and look how cool I am now!!!!!!

Would you hold my beverage for me for a moment? :)

[john doe]

Would you hold my beverage for me for a moment? :)

It depends. It's not some fru-fru diet drink is it?

[Dravin]

It depends. It's not some fru-fru diet drink is it?

/me hangs his head in shame.

Yes.

[rameumptom]

One note on something Cass wrote that God would never use threats to get people to repent. Actually, God DOES use threats to get people to repent. D&C 19 tells us that God uses the terms Eternal and Endless Punishment to make most people fear and repent. Only LDS understand that the terms Eternal and Endless are names for God.

Also, God continually tells people through prophets to repent or else. That sounds like threats to me.

The reality is, God will do whatever it takes to get his children to repent, so that they do not have to suffer Outer Darkness. He created levels of heaven so that even murderers can have a kingdom of glory IF they repent. But they will suffer in spirit prison hell UNTIL they have fully repented. The longer they remain stiff necked, the longer they remain in hell. Hell is used to motivate wicked people to repent. Once most have had a taste of hell, they realize they do not want to suffer with it forever, and will repent.

Righteous people are guided by the laws of love - the full gospel. However, many peoples on earth have not been ready for such a higher law, and are given a lower law. Paul called the Mosaic Law a harsh taskmaster/schoolmaster that drives people towards righteousness. If a person won't repent out of love for God, then repenting out of fear of penalty will also do.

In this, we see the love and mercy of God. He uses whatever tricks are at his disposal to influence us into repenting. Yes, he would prefer all of us to enter the Celestial realm. But he'll take what he can get, and save us on whichever level we will abide upon.

[prisonchaplain]

It depends. It's not some fru-fru diet drink is it?

I admit to occasionally imbibing in diet colas--but I'm still a real man. I purchase the cheapest store brand possible (aka--give it to me in a dirty glass!)

[marts1]

Yes pc, your da man :)

[john doe]

I'm only thanking you guys because the laugh button is disabled in this forum.

[Moksha]

I purchase the cheapest store brand possible (aka--give it to me in a dirty glass!)

"We clean our glasses with cold water everyday. Get them as clean as my dog cold water can make them."

- Proprietor, Store Brand Colas, Inc.

[Cassiopeia]

I guess I just don't see that God is "threatening" anyone. I see consequences as a simple fact but it's not the overriding theme of our doctrine. Love is.

[prisonchaplain]

Cassi, for what it's worth, overall, one of the concerns we evangelicals have with LDS teaching is the seeming near-univeralism of it. If our understanding of hell is correct (that it's eternal, and far larger than LDS doctrine suggests), then we fear that what you say may offer false comfort.

You are focussing on the smallness and narrowness of hell, and it appears to me that those you are discussing with are mostly pointing out that yeah it's small, but it's still there. Different emphasis, perhaps--but at the end of the day, very similar teaching.