# 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:** 16
**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 17, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/301 "2013-01-17T03:43:47Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > 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. Yes, I’d say it’s a mainstream Christian belief, based on those numbers. > [@razncain](#): > > 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. Probably a topic for another thread, but I agree that Mother Teresa’s beliefs were at odds with morality as I see it. > [@razncain](#): > > 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? Ah, but such a view of hell as a place of eternal torment is difficult to support with the Bible itself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states “That state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”” It also states “the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” If Hell is just being without God, then perhaps that is the minimum suffering (though I was referring to the physical world with that comment) possible, when souls are immortal. ---
**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 17, 2013, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/302 "2013-01-17T03:50:13Z")
> [@simster](#): > > 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) Not that broad. It must be _pleasure_ derived from the act of inflicting pain. It can’t be just “a benefit”, otherwise all theft or assault or murder is sadism, and it simply isn’t. The pain must be the desired end, unto itself. > [@simster](#): > > 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. See previous post. God made a Paradise for us, and all we have to do to get in is have faith in God and be saved. If we don’t, that’s our choice, and our soul lives on without God after death. ---
**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 17, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/303 "2013-01-17T03:54:54Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. How do you know it doesn’t work? Perhaps there is an instance in which using rat poison at a dessert topping would produce an outcome that accords with a divine plan. You can’t be expected to know when that instance arises, but God would. > [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. Can you elaborate on these contradictions? > [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. I can’t either. ---
**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, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/304 "2013-01-17T04:28:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not that broad. It must be _pleasure_ derived from the act of inflicting pain. It can’t be just “a benefit”, otherwise all theft or assault or murder is sadism, and it simply isn’t. The pain must be the desired end, unto itself. no - the pleasure/benefit is the desired end - the infliction of pain is the means to that end. Theft, assualt, etc can have varying purposes that have nothing of either element (stealing a car is not inflicting physical pain in most case, the thief may or may not get pleasure from the act, it may serve a different purpose all together). Sadistic tendencies may or may not make an individual a ‘sadist’ in total - for the moment they do that act - assuredly - but it is the total of the acts over time - continuity to those acts - that truly make an individual a sadist. As to the ‘God’ Element - it pleases him to see his faithful followers - he directly causes or fails to prevent real physical pain in order to further his ‘plan’ to help create more ‘followers’. That is the very definition of a sadist. I’ll admit that I am combining terms a bit on the ‘pleasure/benefit’ part - but there is no doubt that God has been ‘pleased’ by the acts of his followers - again, see Joshua, and rewarded them accordingly after they did ‘his will’. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > See previous post. God made a Paradise for us, and all we have to do to get in is have faith in God and be saved. If we don’t, that’s our choice, and our soul lives on without God after death. You are oversimplifying - yet, there is scriptural evidence to suggest that ‘faith’ is all that is required, there is also scriptural evidence that it also requires ‘works’ and ‘demonstrations’ to make that happen. As for the ‘does hell exist’ debate - there is certainly enough scripture to suggest it being a real place of torment. and this is not a debate that I care enough about to continue - it is enough that ‘mainstream’ Christianity considers Hell in whatever form a viable threat that it is sufficient to say “hell exists” for the purpose of this current thread. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/305 "2013-01-17T04:51:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ah, but such a view of hell as a place of eternal torment is difficult to support with the Bible itself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states “That state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”” > > It also states “the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” > > If Hell is just being without God, then perhaps that is the minimum suffering (though I was referring to the physical world with that comment) possible, when souls are immortal. That might be how the CC would like it along with a few others, but in any english version bible, you won’t find that phrase or anything that strongly supports that particular biblical view. Some make a case for Hebrew and Greek words maybe not being translated properly, but that doesn’t explain all of it away, nor why do english versions read the way they do. Here’s a wiki of of [Christian views on Hell.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell) So why do you suppose mainstream Christians, i.e, the majority of them still support as wiki states that: “Hell is generally defined as the eternal fate of unrepentant sinners after this life.” From that link with bolding mine: > [@](#): > > Apart from the use of the term gehenna (translated as “hell” or “hell fire” in most English translations of the Bible; sometimes transliterated, or translated differently [22][23][24][25]), the Johannine writings refer to the **destiny of the wicked in terms of “perishing”, “death” and “condemnation” or “judgment”.** St. Paul speaks of **“wrath”** and **“everlasting destruction”** (cf. Romans 2:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), while the general epistles use a range of terms and images including **“raging fire”** (Hebrews 10:27), **“destruction”** (2 Peter 3:7), **“eternal fire”** (Jude 7) and “blackest darkness” (Jude 13). The Book of Revelation contains the image of a **“lake of fire”** and **“burning sulphur”** where “the devil, the beast, and false prophets” will be **“tormented day and night for ever and ever”** (Revelation 20:10) along with those who worship the beast or receive its mark (Revelation 14:11). So there is plenty of biblical support for such a view of Hell being one of eternal torment. ---
**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 17, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/306 "2013-01-17T05:09:29Z")
> [@simster](#): > > no - the pleasure/benefit is the desired end - the infliction of pain is the means to that end. Theft, assualt, etc can have varying purposes that have nothing of either element (stealing a car is not inflicting physical pain in most case, the thief may or may not get pleasure from the act, it may serve a different purpose all together). > > Sadistic tendencies may or may not make an individual a ‘sadist’ in total - for the moment they do that act - assuredly - but it is the total of the acts over time - continuity to those acts - that truly make an individual a sadist. The benefit must be pleasure for it to be sadism, and specifically pleasure that arises from inflicting pain. > [@simster](#): > > As to the ‘God’ Element - it pleases him to see his faithful followers - he directly causes or fails to prevent real physical pain in order to further his ‘plan’ to help create more ‘followers’. That is the very definition of a sadist. No, that’s not sadism. Pol Pot directly caused or failed to prevent real physical pain in order to further his plan. This doesn’t make him a sadist; the plan was to convert Cambodia to Communism. God’s plan is unknowable, but you state that it’s to gain followers. If so, then inflicting pain to achieve that goal isn’t sadism. When you have to add the “it pleases him to see his followers”, rather than “the pain pleases him”, that’s a way to tell that you aren’t describing sadism. Sadism is A = B, inflicting pain results in pleasure. No third variable. > [@simster](#): > > I’ll admit that I am combining terms a bit on the ‘pleasure/benefit’ part - but there is no doubt that God has been ‘pleased’ by the acts of his followers - again, see Joshua, and rewarded them accordingly after they did ‘his will’. Still not sadism. God commissions Joshua to take possession of Canaan, and warns him to keep faith with the Covenant, not to inflict pain for its own sake. > [@simster](#): > > You are oversimplifying - yet, there is scriptural evidence to suggest that ‘faith’ is all that is required, there is also scriptural evidence that it also requires ‘works’ and ‘demonstrations’ to make that happen. True. This is part of examining Christianity: it’s over two thousand years old, shares texts with an even older religion, with the intervention of hundreds of authors and multiple translations between the supposed source and the modern text. It’s no surprise that the Bible supports multiple positions on nearly any topic, faith vs. works is just one such dispute. > [@simster](#): > > As for the ‘does hell exist’ debate - there is certainly enough scripture to suggest it being a real place of torment. and this is not a debate that I care enough about to continue - it is enough that ‘mainstream’ Christianity considers Hell in whatever form a viable threat that it is sufficient to say “hell exists” for the purpose of this current thread. There’s also scripture that suggests it being the absence of God. It’s not a matter of “does hell exist?”, it’s “what is hell?” It needn’t be a threat for Christians to desire to avoid it; since there’s a manifestly superior option available to all (Heaven). ---
**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 17, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/307 "2013-01-17T05:22:53Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > That might be how the CC would like it along with a few others, but in any english version bible, you won’t find that phrase or anything that strongly supports that particular biblical view. Some make a case for Hebrew and Greek words maybe not being translated properly, but that doesn’t explain all of it away, nor why do english versions read the way they do. Actually, mistranslation does explain it fairly well, as seen in that same Wiki article you cite below. Why do English versions read the way they do? Because they were mistranslated. The imagery of Hell we have today comes from medieval art; it being a visual medium, the artists had to depict Hell visually. It’s very difficult to portray being cut off from God in a painting, fire and demons is much easier. When the Bible began to be translated to vernacular, this is the imagery people had been exposed to. > [@razncain](#): > > Here’s a wiki of of [Christian views on Hell.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell) So why do you suppose mainstream Christians, i.e, the majority of them still support as wiki states that: “Hell is generally defined as the eternal fate of unrepentant sinners after this life.” Because it’s supported by the Bible. What that fate actually is, however, is much less clear. > [@razncain](#): > > From that link with bolding mine: > > So there is plenty of biblical support for such a view of Hell being one of eternal torment. The only one of your bolded terms that actually speaks of torment is the one from Revelation, which is not universally held to have any spiritual value at all. ---
**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, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/308 "2013-01-17T05:32:02Z")
I would say Pol Pot was also a sadist in this context - he received his pleasure thru the pain of others. He was, after all, pleased with the outcome, right? or was he saddened by it? As for Joshua - executing infants would be inflicting pain for its own sake - as a warning to other tribes, as way to insure none of that tribe survive would be excuses - but the infants did nothing to warrant that, nor was it ‘required’ beyond infliction of as much pain as possible. Had God wanted that tribe gone - he could have winked them away with zero pain. The flood, the plagues, etc - all inflicted pain with the only purpose to show that God could inflict it - I guess we could debate how much ‘pleasure’ God received from that - but if it served his purpose and ‘his’ people prospered or followers were gained - then God was ‘pleased’ by the outcome. I think at this point we are in a circle and will simply keep repeating the same argument - outside of anything new, I’m done here. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Because it’s supported by the Bible. What that fate actually is, however, is much less clear. “much less clear” ? How about there is zero evidence to suggest any fate after death exists? ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/309 "2013-01-17T14:15:26Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I would say Pol Pot was also a sadist in this context - he received his pleasure thru the pain of others. He was, after all, pleased with the outcome, right? or was he saddened by it? > > As for Joshua - executing infants would be inflicting pain for its own sake - as a warning to other tribes, as way to insure none of that tribe survive would be excuses - but the infants did nothing to warrant that, nor was it ‘required’ beyond infliction of as much pain as possible. Had God wanted that tribe gone - he could have winked them away with zero pain. > > The flood, the plagues, etc - all inflicted pain with the only purpose to show that God could inflict it - I guess we could debate how much ‘pleasure’ God received from that - but if it served his purpose and ‘his’ people prospered or followers were gained - then God was ‘pleased’ by the outcome. > > I think at this point we are in a circle and will simply keep repeating the same argument - outside of anything new, I’m done here. You’re killing me with this super-broad definition of sadism. I will just reiterate that the pleasure must be the goal. If I punch you and take your wallet because I want your money, I’m not a sadist. If I punch you because I want you to feel pain, I am a sadist. > [@simster](#): > > “much less clear” ? How about there is zero evidence to suggest any fate after death exists? True. I suppose the theist arguement would be that faith is required, which means there cannot be factual evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/310 "2013-01-17T14:19:28Z")
Is it appropriate or logical for one who has blind faith in the existence of a god to ask an atheist for evidence that there _isn’t_ a god? ---
**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, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/311 "2013-01-17T14:25:18Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > You’re killing me with this super-broad definition of sadism. I will just reiterate that the pleasure must be the goal. If I punch you and take your wallet because I want your money, I’m not a sadist. If I punch you because I want you to feel pain, I am a sadist. Ok - then let me simplify it for you - I disagree that pleasure itself is the “goal” - inflicting pain and recieving pleasure co-exist - either can be the “goal”. God wanted and wants people to feel pain in order to influence others to be his followers - It is part of his “plan”. This is recorded in his “book” and is accomplished via the actions of his followers at his direct command and via his own hand. God, for whatever reason, feels the need to inflict pain upon the world in order to fullfil his own agenda - and this pleases him. That he gives “a select few” a way to avoid the pain and suffering (post death) only shows how much of a sadist he is. ---
**Author:** ![Amfet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Amfet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amfet)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/312 "2013-01-17T14:48:30Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > How do you know it doesn’t work? Perhaps there is an instance in which using rat poison at a dessert topping would produce an outcome that accords with a divine plan. Apologies for the sidetrack but, [The Master Speaks](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2328/is-mexican-vanilla-toxic-plus) > [@](#): > > Coumarin has its uses. Under the trade name warfarin it’s used to poison rats by causing internal bleeding. > [@](#): > > Coumarin tastes and smells just like vanilla So, rat poison does taste nice. What kind of a god would create such a tasty poison? 😉 ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/313 "2013-01-17T14:50:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is it appropriate or logical for one who has blind faith in the existence of a god to ask an atheist for evidence that there _isn’t_ a god? I’d say no on both counts. I know little about religions other than Christianity, so my remarks are confined to it. It’s not appropriate, because a Christian shouldn’t base their faith on material evidence. “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” It’s not logical because you can’t prove a negative. ---
**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 17, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/314 "2013-01-17T15:01:01Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Ok - then let me simplify it for you - I disagree that pleasure itself is the “goal” - inflicting pain and recieving pleasure co-exist - either can be the “goal”. Sure, but that’s not what sadism means. Perhaps “[cruel](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruel?show=0&t=1358434307)” is closer to the mark: 1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings \ 2 a: causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain \ b: unrelieved by leniency \ > [@simster](#): > > God wanted and wants people to feel pain in order to influence others to be his followers - It is part of his “plan”. This is recorded in his “book” and is accomplished via the actions of his followers at his direct command and via his own hand. Can you cite that passage? > [@simster](#): > > God, for whatever reason, feels the need to inflict pain upon the world in order to fullfil his own agenda - and this pleases him. That he gives “a select few” a way to avoid the pain and suffering (post death) only shows how much of a sadist he is. Again, I think cruelty is closer to what you mean here. ---
**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 17, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/315 "2013-01-17T15:02:05Z")
> [@Amfet](#): > > Apologies for the sidetrack but, [The Master Speaks](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2328/is-mexican-vanilla-toxic-plus) > > So, rat poison does taste nice. What kind of a god would create such a tasty poison? 😉 See, God is merciful to the poisoned! ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/316 "2013-01-17T15:09:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s not logical because you can’t prove a negative. On existence claims that is correct. It would become problematic to attempt to do so. That’s why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. However proving negatives is done all of the time. One has to give deal in descriptive terms, and limit the search of the domain. . ---
**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 17, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/317 "2013-01-17T15:14:42Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > On existence claims that is correct. It would become problematic to attempt to do so. That’s why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. However proving negatives is done all of the time. One has to give deal in descriptive terms, and limit the search of the domain. . Ok, point taken. Still, the hoary old “you can’t PROVE God doesn’t exist!” gambit is illogical. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/318 "2013-01-17T15:15:15Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > On existence claims that is correct. It would become problematic to attempt to do so. That’s why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. However proving negatives is done all of the time. One has to give deal in descriptive terms, and limit the search of the domain. . I’ve made multiple attempts over the years to nail down a description of God just for that purpose, and found that nailing melting Jell-O to the wall is an easier task. ---
**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, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/319 "2013-01-17T15:18:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sure, but that’s not what sadism means. Perhaps “[cruel](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruel?show=0&t=1358434307)” is closer to the mark: > > 1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings \ > > 2 a: causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain \ > b: unrelieved by leniency \ I would agree that God is cruel as well - > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you cite that passage? These have already been referred to - Joshua’s orders, The Flood, the Plagues, etc. are all examples. ---
**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, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/320 "2013-01-17T15:20:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s not appropriate, because a Christian shouldn’t base their faith on material evidence. “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” Agreed. The Heavenly Father has superior knowledge, that’s why we are faithful. I don’t see why it’s so difficult for non-Christians to believe this. Are you telling me that you know more than Christians and God combined, and that you are more rational. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080.md?page=17)