# 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:** 17
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/321 "2013-01-17T15:22:07Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > 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. Here we go again. Please give us your definition of “atheist”. ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/322 "2013-01-17T15:22:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. Ah, but it could be argued that man could never compose an accurate description of God, because man is limited and God is not. Could an ant ever hope to perfectly understand and describe a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier? ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/323 "2013-01-17T15:22:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Actually, mistranslation does explain it fairly well, as seen in that same Wiki article you cite below. It only explains part of the mistranslation problem with the Hebrew word “Sheol” being translated into “Hades” in the NT and agreeing that it actually only meant grave. “Gehenna” was clear enough what message Jesus was trying to portray hell was like. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a strong case of all of places of where the traditional view of hell being completely a mistranslation when Jesus spoke or some other NT writer and each and every time were simply all based on mistranslations. But the OT and NT are quite different. There really isn’t a hell portrayed in the OT the way most Christians today accept it. But nor is there some kind of heaven. That’s why they had to go out and invent their own religion of what they wanted heaven and hell concepts to be like. > [@](#): > > 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. I think there was more than one place in bold type where it showed to be one of torment. But universally have any spiritual value? Does any traditional view of eternal torment give one spiritual value? Jesus elsewhere has about a dozen places or so where he speaks of hell the way most today still accept it today. Imagine for thousands of years, the best translators that the church had access to, and they were mistaken on all accounts. It would make one wonder what else they had screwed up so bad, starting with heaven. Since you read that article, you probably paid attention the Catechism of the CC which states: > [@](#): > > It is agreed that hell is a place of suffering.[77][78][79] > The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: > Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire”, and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” > The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire”. 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.[80] In recent years, despite the CC always maintaining the traditional views of hell, it does say as of late it, it has been trying to move in a separationist direction. In that article it gives many views of what Catholics believe, but concludes by saying: \* Concerning the detailed specific nature of hell … the Catholic Church has defined nothing. … It is useless to speculate about its true nature, and more sensible to confess our ignorance in a question that evidently exceeds human understanding.\* Concerning what sadist actually means. I think it was clear what the OP meant by it. I remember somewhere that Samuel Johnson wrote that dictionaries are to be used as a guide, and that they weren’t infallible and that the best of them cannot be expected to be quite true. They are a great starting place. I can think of other names to describe this character if sadist doesn’t do it for you, and you want to argue on whether or not he really derived pleasure from it. I don’t think people today think much of their God having genitalia, so obviously most think there would not be any sexual pleasure from it. And rather such a being derives pleasure or not from it, does it really matter? Whether he did or didn’t, the acts that he carries out is not moral compass or guide for the rest of us, and definitely not something anyone should be emulating. If someone says, to be god-like, and tries to emulate this character, they’ll end up either in prison or the mental asylum. ---
**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, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/324 "2013-01-17T15:24:45Z")
If it’s true that humans can’t understand God, they can’t rule out the idea that God inflicts pain for its own sake. That statement involves analyzing God. ---
**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, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/325 "2013-01-17T15:25:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ah, but it could be argued that man could never compose an accurate description of God, because man is limited and God is not. Could an ant ever hope to perfectly understand and describe a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier? Would an ant be so stupid as to _worship_ a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, or think that a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier gives a shit about it? ---
**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, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/326 "2013-01-17T15:27:30Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > 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. Yes, I am smarter than your god. I am also smarter than Sherlock Holmes, Lex Luthor and Doc Savage. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/327 "2013-01-17T15:28:06Z")
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike—McKown ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/328 "2013-01-17T15:31:16Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > 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. Which is to say he is withholding information. For what reason? As a test? It’s not difficult to believe so much as it’s difficult to understand the point of the exercise if you don’t already believe in it. > [@](#): > > Are you telling me that you know more than Christians and God combined, and that you are more rational. Well, again, you’re mostly talking to people who don’t believe in God. So they’re not claiming to know more than him. They’re more interested in what you believe ---
**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, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/329 "2013-01-17T15:40:03Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I would agree that God is cruel as well - Ok, I won’t argue with that one, except to note that without God’s perfect understanding, we cannot know the alternatives to God’s acts. He may choose the most merciful path every time, but because only God knows his plan, we’ve no way to know this. > [@simster](#): > > These have already been referred to - Joshua’s orders, The Flood, the Plagues, etc. are all examples. Hold on, now. You wrote: > [@](#): > > 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. I’m using the American Standard Bible here, for clarity. Joshua’s orders, from Joshua 1:1-5: > [@](#): > > Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Jehovah, that Jehovah spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying, > > 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. > > 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. > > 4 From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. > > 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life. as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. God’s orders were not to influence others to be followers, but to provide a land for the chosen people. The Flood, Genesis 6:5-8 and 7:1: > [@](#): > > 5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. > > 6 And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. > > 7 And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them. > > 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. > 1 And Jehovah said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. God acted not to increase his base of followers, but to start creation over, using a righteous man instead of the other wicked men. He wanted people to be better to one another. The Plagues, Exodus 5:1-2 and 7:4-5 > [@](#): > > 1 And afterward Moses and Aaron came, and said unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. > > 2 And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto his voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah, and moreover I will not let Israel go. > 4 But Pharaoh will not hearken unto you, and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. > > 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah, when I stretch forth my hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them. God acted to save his chosen people from bondage, not to gain more followers. So can you cite where God inflicted pain to increase his base of followers? ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/330 "2013-01-17T15:49:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Which is to say he is withholding information. For what reason? As a test? It’s not difficult to believe so much as it’s difficult to understand the point of the exercise if you don’t already believe in it. God doesn’t withhold information, He reveals it. If He gave us all the information then free will would be pointless. ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/331 "2013-01-17T15:51:48Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > God doesn’t withhold information, He reveals it. :rolleyes: You can’t reveal something unless you withheld it first. I am sure you can understand this. > [@](#): > > If He gave us all the information then free will would be pointless. There’s something of a false dilemma there since he could certainly give you more information than you have if he did exist. And why does free will matter? ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/332 "2013-01-17T15:59:13Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > It only explains part of the mistranslation problem with the Hebrew word “Sheol” being translated into “Hades” in the NT and agreeing that it actually only meant grave. “Gehenna” was clear enough what message Jesus was trying to portray hell was like. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a strong case of all of places of where the traditional view of hell being completely a mistranslation when Jesus spoke or some other NT writer and each and every time were simply all based on mistranslations. Ok, I can accept your take, here. > [@razncain](#): > > But the OT and NT are quite different. There really isn’t a hell portrayed in the OT the way most Christians today accept it. But nor is there some kind of heaven. That’s why they had to go out and invent their own religion of what they wanted heaven and hell concepts to be like. And this. > [@razncain](#): > > I think there was more than one place in bold type where it showed to be one of torment. But universally have any spiritual value? Does any traditional view of eternal torment give one spiritual value? I meant that the Book of Revelation’s spiritual value, and whether it should even be in the Bible, is disputed. > [@razncain](#): > > Jesus elsewhere has about a dozen places or so where he speaks of hell the way most today still accept it today. Imagine for thousands of years, the best translators that the church had access to, and they were mistaken on all accounts. It would make one wonder what else they had screwed up so bad, starting with heaven. Since you read that article, you probably paid attention the Catechism of the CC which states: > > In recent years, despite the CC always maintaining the traditional views of hell, it does say as of late it, it has been trying to move in a separationist direction. In that article it gives many views of what Catholics believe, but concludes by saying: \* Concerning the detailed specific nature of hell … the Catholic Church has defined nothing. … It is useless to speculate about its true nature, and more sensible to confess our ignorance in a question that evidently exceeds human understanding.\* Yes, the mutability of doctrine over the years should give one pause. I’d say it’s a feature, not a bug, but these sort of fundamental shifts over time do give the whole affair a very human, rather than divine, appearance. > [@razncain](#): > > Concerning what sadist actually means. I think it was clear what the OP meant by it. I remember somewhere that Samuel Johnson wrote that dictionaries are to be used as a guide, and that they weren’t infallible and that the best of them cannot be expected to be quite true. They are a great starting place. I can think of other names to describe this character if sadist doesn’t do it for you, and you want to argue on whether or not he really derived pleasure from it. I don’t think people today think much of their God having genitalia, so obviously most think there would not be any sexual pleasure from it. Yes, the OP used it correctly. Sadist only works if you don’t further stipulate that God’s cruelty has concrete benefits to God, such as making more followers. > [@razncain](#): > > And rather such a being derives pleasure or not from it, does it really matter? Whether he did or didn’t, the acts that he carries out is not moral compass or guide for the rest of us, and definitely not something anyone should be emulating. If someone says, to be god-like, and tries to emulate this character, they’ll end up either in prison or the mental asylum. It mattered to the OP, hence the thread. I think there is some moral value to the Bible, but it’s mixed in with a lot of appalling cruelty of the ancient world, so without a separate moral system to tell which is which, it has little value as a guide on its own. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/333 "2013-01-17T15:59:24Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ok, I won’t argue with that one, except to note that without God’s perfect understanding, we cannot know the alternatives to God’s acts. He may choose the most merciful path every time, but because only God knows his plan, we’ve no way to know this. > > Hold on, now. You wrote: > > I’m using the American Standard Bible here, for clarity. > > Joshua’s orders, from Joshua 1:1-5: > > God’s orders were not to influence others to be followers, but to provide a land for the chosen people. > > The Flood, Genesis 6:5-8 and 7:1: > God acted not to increase his base of followers, but to start creation over, using a righteous man instead of the other wicked men. He wanted people to be better to one another. > > The Plagues, Exodus 5:1-2 and 7:4-5 > God acted to save his chosen people from bondage, not to gain more followers. > > So can you cite where God inflicted pain to increase his base of followers? By getting rid of the competition and only leaving ‘his faithful’, he increases his following. His people prosper, others fail - his following increases. His methods inflicted pain - dying by drowning, axe or by pestulance (etc) - all cause pain. Pain he directly ordered or caused to happen. ---
**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, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/334 "2013-01-17T16:00:43Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > God doesn’t withhold information, He reveals it. If He gave us all the information then free will would be pointless. 1. Your god doesn’t have free will 2. Your god _does_ have free will, but doesn’t have all the information 3. Your logic has a whole the size of the state of Texas in it. ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/335 "2013-01-17T16:04:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If it’s true that humans can’t understand God, they can’t rule out the idea that God inflicts pain for its own sake. That statement involves analyzing God. Agreed, the benevolence of God is just as much an item of faith as the existence of God. Both must be accepted without evidence, or the whole enterprise falls apart. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would an ant be so stupid as to _worship_ a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, or think that a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier gives a shit about it? It’d only be stupid to a third party with superior knowledge to the ant’s (or a particularly logical ant skeptic). The ant isn’t in a position to **know** the nature of the carrier, or whether the carrier loves the ants, it must go on faith and interpret signs and omens. This will only occur if worshipping the carrier makes the ant’s life better, irrespective of the reality of the belief, or if the worship is a tradition that persists even as the benefits diminish in light of alternate ways of understanding the world. ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/336 "2013-01-17T16:18:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. Your god doesn’t have free will > 2. Your god _does_ have free will, but doesn’t have all the information > 3. Your logic has a whole the size of the state of Texas in it. I was referring to our free will. Since we don’t fully understand the nature of God, we don’t know if He has free will. If God told us the exact nature of His plan then we would follow it to the letter and we would be no better than computers. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/337 "2013-01-17T16:19:38Z")
> [@simster](#): > > By getting rid of the competition and only leaving ‘his faithful’, he increases his following. > > His people prosper, others fail - his following increases. > > His methods inflicted pain - dying by drowning, axe or by pestulance (etc) - all cause pain. Pain he directly ordered or caused to happen. Deuteronomy 7:6: For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. So, if the Israelites are objectively superior people, then of course God favors them. But, being merciful, he allows anyone to be saved and enter Heaven. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/338 "2013-01-17T16:20:49Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I was referring to our free will. Since we don’t fully understand the nature of God, we don’t know if He has free will. > > If God told us the exact nature of His plan then we would follow it to the letter and we would be no better than computers. So you _can_ see my posts. Can you please give us your definition of “atheist”? ---
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/339 "2013-01-17T16:27:35Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s not difficult to believe so much as it’s difficult to understand the point of the exercise if you don’t already believe in it. This is the heart of the matter. If one accepts the idea of a benevolent, omnipotent, omnicient God, whose nature is imperfectly captured in the Bible, then one can explain away most any perceived shortcoming of that God. I have tried to do that in this thread, to illustrate this. I think I’ve been modestly successful. That said, the acceptance of such a God is not based on logic or rationality. Instead, it is an irrational, emotional belief, and one that can not be advocated for using logic and reason, because it does not originate from those sources. Theists should understand that this basic belief in a God cannot be argued about with reason. Atheists should understand that criticism of aspects of a particular conception of a God, is of limited value in addressing this underlying belief. ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080/340 "2013-01-17T16:35:44Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Since we don’t fully understand the nature of God, we don’t know if He has free will. Presumably he could tell you, but won’t. > [@](#): > > If God told us the exact nature of His plan then we would follow it to the letter and we would be no better than computers. What would that matter? Why does God care about free will to the point he won’t answer some simple questions from the beings he created- even going so far as to create them to not only be ignorant of what he’s doing, but unable to understand it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-must-be-a-sadist/645080.md?page=18)