# God must be a sadist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080 "2012-12-25T01:04:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/281 "2013-01-16T20:50:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, there’s the real answer: God’s not a sadist because there is no God. > > But a theist can also posit that God isn’t a sadist, and make a decent case for it. Ah, but we’re not debating the savage nature on a non-existent god. We’re debating the savage nature of a deist’s god. Specifically the Christian god now. Though I don’t know that Christians should take the full brunt of this argument. I’m not sure that, “god works in mysterious ways”, is a decent argument against a sadistic interpretation of god. I prefer to look at the available evidence, not the speculative mental gymnastics about god’s ultimate impenetrable plan. Most theist would agree: God exists. God is omnipotent and omnicient. God takes an active interest in humanity. God has a plan. …amarite? I just don’t see how: God is benevolent. …necessarily follows. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/282 "2013-01-16T20:52:16Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If we revise it to “A person deriving a benefit - usually pleasure, but not necessarily so - by the suffering of others that they either directly cause or could at least prevent”, then it must only be argued that suffering benefits mankind as well, or does not benefit God. Simple enough. We must also ignore the “excessive cruelty” definition, because that’s game over. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/283 "2013-01-16T20:52:16Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > For the record, the Merriam-Webster definition: > 1: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) — compare masochism > > 2 a: delight in cruelty > b: excessive cruelty > > As to your definition, if the suffering is needless, how can it provide a benefit? Needless means not needed or unnecessary. I missed the chance to edit to remove the word ‘needless’ from my definition - it is needless if it can be prevented. I do not believe anyone in this thread has suggested that God’s Sadism has a sexual overtone to it. Simply that he derives a benefit from the suffering of his creation that he has caused - either directly via his servants (joshua) or by his own hand (the flood, plagues, etc). That “humans” may also derive a benefit (heaven) is irrelevant to God’s side of it. And how can it be a gift if we have to prove ourselves worthy? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/284 "2013-01-16T21:12:03Z")
I do wonder and I hope this is not a hijack… why are believers so convinced of the benevolent nature of god when we are all looking at the same evidence? Even the most optimistic among us ought to conclude that at best, god, if he exists, is indifferent. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/285 "2013-01-16T21:16:59Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Ah, but we’re not debating the savage nature on a non-existent god. We’re debating the savage nature of a deist’s god. Specifically the Christian god now. Though I don’t know that Christians should take the full brunt of this argument. Sure, these questions apply to any deity that created the universe or takes an active role in it. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m not sure that, “god works in mysterious ways”, is a decent argument against a sadistic interpretation of god. I prefer to look at the available evidence, not the speculative mental gymnastics about god’s ultimate impenetrable plan. > > Most theist would agree: > > God exists. > God is omnipotent and omnicient. > God takes an active interest in humanity. > God has a plan. > > …amarite? > > I just don’t see how: > > God is benevolent. > > …necessarily follows. I agree that it doesn’t follow from those four items, it must be stipulated separately. > [@Marley23](#): > > We must also ignore the “excessive cruelty” definition, because that’s game over. Not necessarily. If God is the only all-knowing being, only God is in a position to judge exactly how much force or what techniques are ideal for a given situation. Perhaps that rain of boulders was the only way to further God’s plan. How would we know? Our understanding is imperfect. > [@simster](#): > > I missed the chance to edit to remove the word ‘needless’ from my definition - it is needless if it can be prevented. Ah, ok then. > [@simster](#): > > I do not believe anyone in this thread has suggested that God’s Sadism has a sexual overtone to it. Simply that he derives a benefit from the suffering of his creation that he has caused - either directly via his servants (joshua) or by his own hand (the flood, plagues, etc). > > That “humans” may also derive a benefit (heaven) is irrelevant to God’s side of it. The word “pleasure” been used, including by you. Your definition seems very broad to me. If I steal your car, am I a sadist? If you’re hungry and I choose not to share my food, am I sadist? > [@simster](#): > > And how can it be a gift if we have to prove ourselves worthy? The existence of heaven would be the gift, the opportunity for life eternal in Paradise. When I give out gifts, they don’t go to every person, but they are still gifts because they are freely given. You’re free not to seek salvation, after all. Free will again. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/286 "2013-01-16T21:17:38Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I do wonder and I hope this is not a hijack… why are believers so convinced of the benevolent nature of god when we are all looking at the same evidence? > > Even the most optimistic among us ought to conclude that at best, god, if he exists, is indifferent. Right - which is the Deist take on it - and the denial of all ‘revealed’ religions. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/287 "2013-01-16T21:20:54Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I do wonder and I hope this is not a hijack… why are believers so convinced of the benevolent nature of god when we are all looking at the same evidence? > > Even the most optimistic among us ought to conclude that at best, god, if he exists, is indifferent. Because the (theistic) alternatives are worse. "God loves us, even if bad things happen, he’ll help us out or at least let us into Heaven) is much more reassuring than “God doesn’t care, you’re on your own” or “God hates us”. Also, if God will provide for you IF you do the right things, then the tribe’s priest who can tell you what the right things are becomes very valuable, and should be given food and excused from labor. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/288 "2013-01-16T21:23:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not necessarily. If God is the only all-knowing being, only God is in a position to judge exactly how much force or what techniques are ideal for a given situation. Perhaps that rain of boulders was the only way to further God’s plan. How would we know? Our understanding is imperfect. **pchaos** already tried this. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/289 "2013-01-16T21:31:51Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I agree that it doesn’t follow from those four items, it must be stipulated separately. I would but do we really need one more god thread? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/290 "2013-01-16T21:42:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **pchaos** already tried this. With this? > [@pchaos](#): > > How many people are ready to pass judgment on their Father. Not only is he the Father, but He is the Heavenly Father with superior knowledge. Re-reading the thread, I don’t see where anyone addressed that remark. **Meatros** brought up the rain of boulders thing, and that’s when **pchaos** went for the “Fair enough, but if your grandson was accidentally shot by friendly fire in combat, what are you going to tell grieving parents” diversion. So, how would you address the special-knowledge argument? > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I would but do we really need one more god thread? 🙂 I’m game, but as I said, I agree with you that the benevolence doesn’t flow from the other statements, so you’d have to see if someone would take up the other side. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/291 "2013-01-16T21:55:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > With this? It’s been a theme in his posts that humans can’t and shouldn’t judge God because [vagueness]. > [@](#): > > So, how would you address the special-knowledge argument? The same way I addressed it earlier: by saying that it’s useless and unsatisfying, and that it doesn’t resolve the question because - according to this reasoning - it was God’s choice to make us unable to comprehend the world or his plan in addition to making us suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/292 "2013-01-16T22:02:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The same way I addressed it earlier: by saying that it’s useless and unsatisfying, and that it doesn’t resolve the question because - according to this reasoning - it was God’s choice to make us unable to comprehend the world or his plan in addition to making us suffer. Ok, I must have missed that. Sorry. I suppose you could argue that faith is necessary for salvation, and that if humans could be certain of the world and God, then faith would be impossible. Or, that being God is a burden that God chose to spare humanity, out of benevolence. Perhaps we mere humans actually have it better than God. Either way, the “God sets the rules” problem is difficult to address, particularly when combined with the “we couldn’t possibly understand God” problem. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/293 "2013-01-16T22:18:26Z")
What does mainstream Christianity even mean? In a fairly recent ABC poll, 60% of Americans (3% +or- accuracy) still take the Noah and flood story literally. So does this majority view of Americans make it mainstream? Perhaps it is mainstream America, and mainstream Christianity, but certainly not mainstream in academics. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Oh, that’s what Cumberdale meant? Mother Teresa’s idealization of suffering isn’t indicative of a sadistic god either. I didn’t think her Homes for the Dying counted as hospitals, either. I suppose that is what Cumberdale meant. And true, not hospitals, but she had many clinics, hostels, and charities that were supposed to be helping the poor and the dying. MT clearly has a different view on what constituted help. There is plenty I want to say about her, but I may save it for a future thread since this thread has covered so much other ground today. I will say this though. The suffering she allowed in her clinics and hostels and nearly universal lack of material help in aiding them is inexcusable. And it wasn’t for lack of money, one sister reported one Bronx checking account had 50 million in it. She truly said and practiced that the world is much better helped by the suffering of poor people. But for her, only the best that the west had to offer in clinics and hospitals would do when she was having her heart problems and other age related health issues. The suffering was for everybody else. I’m also thinking “what a C!” And it isn’t Christian. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ah, but the suffering we face is the minimum amount possible under God’s plan. He can’t control what we believe, for we have free will. And the plan will be worth it in the end! We just don’t know what it is. So what happened to eternal Hell-fire damnation? And if that is the minimum amount of suffering possible under God’s plan, what would be the maximum? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/294 "2013-01-16T22:20:37Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The word “pleasure” been used, including by you. > > Your definition seems very broad to me. If I steal your car, am I a sadist? If you’re hungry and I choose not to share my food, am I sadist? I would say that both of those are sadistic tendencies - whether or not I call you a sadist will necessarily depend on other qualities as well - whether or not you do these things simply to cause me harm or ‘prove a point’ or other ideas - vs if you do them simply for other reasons. God, who claims mercy and compassion - does monstrous things to prove he is ‘God’ - that takes on an entirely different connotation. “Pleasure” == pleasing, pleased by, etc - a benefit - does not have to equal “sexual” pleasure and I think you know that but want to try and cloud the argument - The “psychiatric” definition of sadism necessarily includes that, but the overall definition of Sadism is broad - [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sadist](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sadist) S: (n) sadist (someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain on others) > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The existence of heaven would be the gift, the opportunity for life eternal in Paradise. When I give out gifts, they don’t go to every person, but they are still gifts because they are freely given. You’re free not to seek salvation, after all. Free will again. Still not much of a gift if the alternative is Hell - “do this or suffer for all eternity” is not much of a gift or free will. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/295 "2013-01-16T23:47:42Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Since the ‘plan’ seems to require the suffering (or suffering is attributed to be part of ‘God’s plan’ by his followers) - in any event, God is sufficiently capable to prevent said suffering - therefore he must enjoy it at some level - either becuase it causes his plan to move forward or because it is a necessary part of his plan. I don’t think of him as inflicting suffering, I think of suffering as a natural part of life. Just like God didn’t want Jesus to die on the cross, but that was the natural consequence of what Jesus was preaching those days. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/296 "2013-01-16T23:54:47Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > . . . Not necessarily. If God is the only all-knowing being, only God is in a position to judge exactly how much force or what techniques are ideal for a given situation. Perhaps that rain of boulders was the only way to further God’s plan. How would we know? Our understanding is imperfect. . . . In my opinion, our knowledge is good enough. I don’t have to have perfect knowledge to know that rat poison doesn’t work as a dessert topping; I only have to have enough knowledge to know that. This (again, my opinion) is why “God’s Perfect Knowledge” fails as an argument; it contradicts my own knowledge, limited though it may be. For it to work as an argument, I would have to accept a whole lot of things which I can tell, from the evidence of my own senses, and from the workings of my morality, simply aren’t true. It’s not very much different from “If you believe in your heart that 2 + 2 = 18, you get to go to heaven and be happy forever and ever.” I can’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/297 "2013-01-17T00:39:42Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I don’t think of him as inflicting suffering, I think of suffering as a natural part of life. The life that God created, that is. > [@](#): > > Just like God didn’t want Jesus to die on the cross, but that was the natural consequence of what Jesus was preaching those days. That’s even more of a mess if you think Jesus is God. I don’t even want to touch that one. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/298 "2013-01-17T01:18:58Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I don’t think of him as inflicting suffering, I think of suffering as a natural part of life. > > Just like God didn’t want Jesus to die on the cross, but that was the natural consequence of what Jesus was preaching those days. I think you need to re-read your bible - John 3, John 12 and Romans 5 should pretty much sum it up. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/299 "2013-01-17T01:51:52Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I think you need to re-read your bible - John 3, John 12 and Romans 5 should pretty much sum it up. I read these passages to mean that suffering is an important part of life and has value. I don’t see anything really controversial. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/300 "2013-01-17T02:11:51Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I read these passages to mean that suffering is an important part of life and has value. I don’t see anything really controversial. YOu said - [QUOTE=pchaos] Just like God didn’t want Jesus to die on the cross, but that was the natural consequence of what Jesus was preaching those days. [/QUOTE] John 3:16 - God sent him to ‘save’ John 12:27 - This is the very reason he was sent (this was when he realized he was about to be put to death, or predicted it) Romans 5 - Sin was from Adam and Eve, Christ paid the price with his life so we didn’t have to suffer forever and could have a ‘chance’ at eternal life. Therefore - your statement “God did not want Jesus to die” is demonstrably false - it was required that he be ‘sacrificed’ in order for all us ‘sinners’ to have a chance. as for suffering being a requirement and part of the natural order, remember that it was all due to Adam and Eve’s transgression in Eden - which of course could have been prevented had God gave them a bit more detail - after all, since they had not eaten from the ‘tree of knowledge of good and bad’ - they had absolutely no basis to not trust the ‘serpent’ or to even know that death was ‘bad’ - instead, if you read further - you find that God is afraid of man, ‘less he become just like us’ with immortality - in other words - God wanted humans to be dumb and immortal or smart and short lived and suffering the entire time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080.md?page=16)