Welcome to Gaia! ::


The missionaries came over tonight, in fact they just left. There are a few interesting things that they left me with.

1. In discussing the Atonement, it was pointed out to me that Christ didn't just suffer for the sins of the world, he also suffered/felt all the physical pains/illnesses/infrimaties of the people of the world.

This isn't anything new to me, I have know about this for a long time. The part that was so damn intrigueing was the fact that according to the missionaries. . . the pain that Christ suffered for the sins was actually less painful than the suffering for the physical problems. This was because

Elder M***
The "pain" or guilt that is suffered by people, spiritually, for sinning is a more general experience. The feeling is the same no matter what sin is commited even if the cause of it is different, because all sins are us breaking a commandment.


Now, how can that be? I was always taught that the pain Christ suffered was because of our sins and that he felt our physical pains, but it was our sins that caused him to suffer most.

Do any of the apologists know if there was a recent shift to this way of thinking? I must admit that there are few current practices of the church that I pay attention to because "if the tree is evil, it bringeth forth evil fruit"

Another thing that was brought to my attention was that because I never sent in my letter of legal resignation from the church. . . I am still considered a member, and the requirements might be different. Even though I left the church completely, due to a technicality, the missionaries do not "hold the keys to . . . your rejoining the church". I actually have to speak with a bishop to find out what is going to be required.

I think I am going to show up to some random ward and talk to the first bishop that I see. "But I don't have a bishop! I haven't been to church in 6 years."

Or I will just talk to my fiance's bishop, because he knows that I exist.
Speck-Cipher, I have a question for you. Your signature reads
Speck's Signature
95% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 5% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.


Can I "cut 'n' paste" this into my signature, since I didn't try marijuanna until I was 20? I wasn't a teenager. . .

Dapper Genius

5,875 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Darkslider
Speck-Cipher, I have a question for you. Your signature reads
Speck's Signature
95% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 5% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.


Can I "cut 'n' paste" this into my signature, since I didn't try marijuanna until I was 20? I wasn't a teenager. . .

*scratches head*
Just realised the same is true of me.
Whitelightone
We teach that Christ "descended below all things"—including every kind of sickness, infirmity, and dark despair experienced by every mortal being—in order that he might "comprehend all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth" (D&C 88:6). This spiritual anguish of plumbing the depths of human suffering and sorrow was experienced primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there that he was "in an agony" and "prayed more earnestly." It was there that his sweat was "as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44) for he bled "at every pore" (D&C 19:1 cool .

In other words, there was no shift. That's the way it's always been taught. Sounds to me like you haven't payed attention much before now.


Re-read the question. Sorry if it seems snappish. . . but I am ******** tired.
Reagun Ban
Darkslider
Speck-Cipher, I have a question for you. Your signature reads
Speck's Signature
95% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 5% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.


Can I "cut 'n' paste" this into my signature, since I didn't try marijuanna until I was 20? I wasn't a teenager. . .

*scratches head*
Just realised the same is true of me.
By that tecnicality, Yes.
Darkslider
The missionaries came over tonight, in fact they just left. There are a few interesting things that they left me with.

1. In discussing the Atonement, it was pointed out to me that Christ didn't just suffer for the sins of the world, he also suffered/felt all the physical pains/illnesses/infrimaties of the people of the world.

This isn't anything new to me, I have know about this for a long time. The part that was so damn intrigueing was the fact that according to the missionaries. . . the pain that Christ suffered for the sins was actually less painful than the suffering for the physical problems. This was because

Elder M***
The "pain" or guilt that is suffered by people, spiritually, for sinning is a more general experience. The feeling is the same no matter what sin is commited even if the cause of it is different, because all sins are us breaking a commandment.


Now, how can that be? I was always taught that the pain Christ suffered was because of our sins and that he felt our physical pains, but it was our sins that caused him to suffer most.

Do any of the apologists know if there was a recent shift to this way of thinking? I must admit that there are few current practices of the church that I pay attention to because "if the tree is evil, it bringeth forth evil fruit"

Another thing that was brought to my attention was that because I never sent in my letter of legal resignation from the church. . . I am still considered a member, and the requirements might be different. Even though I left the church completely, due to a technicality, the missionaries do not "hold the keys to . . . your rejoining the church". I actually have to speak with a bishop to find out what is going to be required.

I think I am going to show up to some random ward and talk to the first bishop that I see. "But I don't have a bishop! I haven't been to church in 6 years."

Or I will just talk to my fiance's bishop, because he knows that I exist.
I never herd that Christ suffered for our fiscal pains and sufferings. Logically speaking he wouldn't have needed to. I do know that because of taking all the sins of the world on him that he felt psychological pain to the point that his body reacted to the point of secretion of thick sweat which I think would be really painful and probably was. Maybe Elder M*** heard wrong.
Darkslider
Whitelightone
We teach that Christ "descended below all things"—including every kind of sickness, infirmity, and dark despair experienced by every mortal being—in order that he might "comprehend all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth" (D&C 88:6). This spiritual anguish of plumbing the depths of human suffering and sorrow was experienced primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there that he was "in an agony" and "prayed more earnestly." It was there that his sweat was "as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44) for he bled "at every pore" (D&C 19:1 cool .

In other words, there was no shift. That's the way it's always been taught. Sounds to me like you haven't payed attention much before now.


Re-read the question. Sorry if it seems snappish. . . but I am ******** tired.
And I did. There was no shift in the way we taught the Atonement. It's basically been the same way it has been. The General Authorities have given numourous talks on the subject. They all pretty much say the same thing.
Dark was told that the suffering for the atonement was guilt of sin and physical suffering, and the new bit He heard was that the spiritual suffering was less painful than the physical suffering. The reasoning given is the suffering for sin was simply for each partcular sin in general, not all each partcular sin x the number a sin has and will occure. (Or as I am trying to understand it) But I don't think thats doctrinal to measure spiritual suffering against the mortal suffering, however I would only disagree in the light of my oun non-doctrinal veiw.
I think that the suffering of sin would be harder to endure than that if fiscal suffering. This brings me to an interesting question.

Is hell an actual place or just another state of being? I have found that in most religions around the world that hell is a pace where one is miserable. In the hot places a hot stench of fire and brimstone is hell and for cold places it is a freezing place that miserable to be in. With these differences, I think that it is a most miserable state maybe caused by a great sense of gilt. Almost like as if you just woke up from a stupor and realized that you did something bad.
Pyropyre
Dark was told that the suffering for the atonement was guilt of sin and physical suffering, and the new bit He heard was that the spiritual suffering was less painful than the physical suffering. The reasoning given is the suffering for sin was simply at each partcular sin in general, not all each partcular sin x the number a sin has and will happen. (Or as I am trying to understand it) But I don't think thats doctrinal to measure spiritual suffering against the mortal suffering, however I would only disagree in the light of my oun non-doctrinal veiw.
Think about this: the physical pain is damage done to the mortal coil. The spiritual pain cuts deep at the heart of the individual and can lead to longer-lasting infirmities. My own opinion is that after suffering spiritual death in Gethsemane, the crucifixion was simply a spit in the face and a completion through physical death. Overall, the anguish suffered by Christ in Gethsemane and on Calvary supercedes what any mortal could bear.
Speck-Cipher
I think that the suffering of sin would be harder to endure than that if fiscal suffering. This brings me to an interesting question.
I wasn't aware Christ owed back taxes eek So that's why they nailed him to a cross! blaugh

Speck-Cipher
Is hell an actual place or just another state of being? I have found that in most religions around the world that hell is a pace where one is miserable. In the hot places a hot stench of fire and brimstone is hell and for cold places it is a freezing place that miserable to be in. With these differences, I think that it is a most miserable state maybe caused by a great sense of gilt. Almost like as if you just woke up from a stupor and realized that you did something bad.
Which Hell do you want to talk about?

Wikipedia
One problem with the Western Christian view of Hell is that it may be based in part on an error in translation. Jeff Priddy, writing in The Idle Babbler Illustrated (Volume 4, Issue 2) (http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/priddy/ibi_4_2.htm), expresses the problem:

'The religious and secular man's nightmarish ideas of HELL (that is, of a Christ-managed hothouse where sinners get burned forever) come to them compliments of ... careless translating ... the practice of ignoring separate Greek words.

In 2 Pet. 2:4, God chose the Greek word "Tartaroo" (ταρταροω; English transliteration, "Tartarus" wink to identify the temporary abode of sinning angels. Tartarus holds spirit beings, not humans. and there is not a flame on the premises. The KJV and NIV translators (neither of whose versions have any influence in the expression of Eastern Orthodox doctrine) gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell."

In Matthew 5:22 (and in several other places), God chose a different Greek word, "Geenna," (English transliteration: "Gehenna" wink to name a valley on the southwest corner of Jerusalem where the corpses of criminals will be disposed of during the thousand-year kingdom. There are flames here, yes, but the flames cremate the dead (Is. 66:24), they don't torture the living. Most of humanity is not even alive to see Gehenna (Rev. 20:5), let alone be tormented there. The KJV and NIV translators gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell."

In Luke 16:23 (and in other places), God chose the Greek word, "hades," to describe the state of invisibility; in Greek, the word means "unseen." God uses this word often to describe a person's nonexistence in death: unless spoken of figuratively, a dead person doesn't see anything, hear anything, feel anything, know anything, do anything: hades. Flames, screams, pointy tails and pitchforks are conspicuously absent. All the dead "go" here, not just the wicked. The KJV and NIV translators gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell." '

Priddy goes on to point out that if a (Western) Christian says that someone is in "Hell", that "is a terrible lack of information", because many versions of the Bible indiscriminately use the word "Hell" to describe three different places. If you press the point, and the Christian says that person is in Gehenna, then you could take a plane to Jerusalem and look for the person there. If the claim is that the person is in Tartarus, you can point out that they were never a stubborn, sinning angel who surrendered their sovereignty during the days of Noah (1 Pet. 3:19-20. 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6). And if in Hades, you could rejoice that, like Christ (Acts 2:3 l), David (Ps. 16: 10), and Jacob (Gn. 37:35) before him, the person has ceased from their troubles and sufferings (Jb. 3:11-19), and now rests, as if asleep (Jn. 11:11,14).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell


I've delved elsewhere on the possibility that the immediate postmortal "hell" is in fact the Catholic equivalent of purgatory, but at this point I digress. One could legitimately argue whether spiritual existences can be defined as "places" or simply states of being.
Here's a question about hell:

To my knowledge hell, or The Outer Darkness, is a place that exists where God's love and light doesn't exist. What would happen if someone in hell started a "church" to worship God, even though God's presence will never be there?
Houshou
Here's a question about hell:

To my knowledge hell, or The Outer Darkness, is a place that exists where God's love and light doesn't exist. What would happen if someone in hell started a "church" to worship God, even though God's presence will never be there?

The people who are in The Outer Darkness would not want to form a church of God there. For they would pretty much want nothing to do with God and are more comfortable where they are without any knoweledge of him at all. Forming a church there would just be something people there would not do. Interesting thought, but one that would not happen at all.
Houshou
Here's a question about hell:

To my knowledge hell, or The Outer Darkness, is a place that exists where God's love and light doesn't exist. What would happen if someone in hell started a "church" to worship God, even though God's presence will never be there?
The problem with that statement is that on one in there could start a church that worshiped god.

For one, by who's authority woudl they start this church? They can not start the church under the Authority of God, as none of them posses the right to call upon such authority. They were stripped of that privilage when they enter that state.

IT is important to remember that it isn't simple sin that places you in Outer Darkness. It is very hard to go there. You have to deny God after you have a sure knowlege. This would be someone like a Bishop denying that god ever existed. As you can see this is nothing easy. Plus if you think about it these are people who turned their backs on god totaly. Would they even do that?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum