You’ll have to expand on this. If Mother Teresa was a sadist, that means the Christian God should be understood as a sadist? Because the Christian God should be understood as a sadist, Mother Teresa’s actions were compatible with Christianity? I honestly don’t know what you mean here.
Agreed.
I don’t think so, because QuickSilver was talking about pchaos, by name:
I understood QuickSilver to mean that pchaos takes the parts of the Bible he/she likes (the afterlife, for instance) and discards the parts he/she doesn’t (God’s cruelty). This is a valid criticism of Christians, I suppose, that they don’t embrace all the tenets of their holy book.
That’s what modern Christianity is, the sweet cherries: the words and works of Christ, a social club, and a tool to support or condemn things you like or dislike, such as tolerance of homosexuals.
But that’s attributing human motives and emotions to a non-human being, that is beyond human understanding. If you accept that there is a God, and that this God is omnipotent and omniscient, then you must also accept that this God is beyond your ability to comprehend, as a mortal human.
Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying, then: you’re arguing that her views just aren’t representative of Christianity at large, right? Because calling a god who loves human suffering (and caused it) sadistic is not that much of a stretch.
It’s a valid criticism of all religious people- we don’t disagree about that. But I think they should be willing to admit it.
That’s more accurate. Now how do you differentiate between the extreme stuff and that new clause?
I know there are plenty of Christian-run hospitals- although that does raise the question of why she didn’t open some hospitals in India. That doesn’t address the view of suffering.
I agree.
So modern Christianity is “the words and works of Christ, a social club, and a tool to support or condemn things you like or dislike, such as tolerance of homosexuals or any number of other potentially extreme views as long as they are embraced by a significant chunk of believers?”
I’m basing it on his (‘God’) commandments and actions as recorded in his ‘Holy Book’ - that in and of itself is enough to call God a ‘sadist’ - Furhter - if we are to accept the ‘Christian’ notion that “God” has a plan and is responsible for everything that is happening, then it follows that if its his ‘plan’ he is taking pleasure in it being executed.
Further - while I accept the notion that I am ‘incapable’ of comprehending said ‘God’, I am still fully capable of judging his actions and his plan on the terms it (god) has granted us.
If we were , in fact , created in his image - and those attributes that would call another human a ‘sadist’ applies to God - then God is a sadist.
Are you asking what the mainstream Christian view of suffering is?
Yes. As I’ve said, Christianity is highly mutable. How else would you judge what Christianity was, than some combination of the Bible and actual practice? Neither is sufficient on its own.
I’m okay (in this context) with the cherry picking of tenets; for Christians as well as for any other religious group. What I was pointing out to pchaos (and anyone of a similar mindset) was that disavowing one self from documented cruelty, by and of god’s hand/command, does not make the whole premise of “god is a sadist” suddenly go away.
I’d like your opinion on what the mainstream Christian view of suffering is, yes.
But not the hellfire stuff and conquest stuff. Just Christ, a social club, and a tool to praise or condemn anything sufficient numbers of people don’t like.
Only if the whole point of the “plan” is to inflict suffering for God’s pleasure. If you accept that you’re incapable of comprehending the hypothetical God, how would you comprehend the plan either?
I comprehend the plan based on its affect on the population - either direct (deaths, suffering caused) or indirect (actions of followers that also cause, that are not thwarted by said ‘God’).
I do not have to understand the ‘plan’ to be able to understand the affects of said ‘plan’.
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.
Since he can prevent it - and does not - he is a sadist - regardless of any perceived reward for his ‘faithful’.
I’m over simplifying but, if I manage a project and want things to go well and according to the project “plan”, I don’t set my team up to fail to then bring my wrath upon their heads. I make adjustments and corrections before things get that far. Else I’d be forced to regularly drown the bastards and start fresh. Unless I enjoy that sort of thing. Though it can get expensive in terms of flood insurance.
I imagine an all knowing and all powerful god would be able to do a much better job than me in similar circumstance. You know… depending on the project goals and objectives.
Ok, I understand you. I agree, a Christian must still address the issue, though “That’s the not the God I believe in” seems adequate to me.
Well, Jesus accepted suffering in order to redeem mankind. Some amount of self-denial and asceticism is viewed as conducive to spiritual growth, and decadence and hedonism is destructive of spiritual growth, but amongst Protestants, at least, salvation comes from faith alone, not works, so nothing like that is required for salvation.
Not many Catholics in my area, so I’m much more versed in Protestantism.
Ok, now two things are being conflated.
What is Christianity?
Some combination of the Bible and actual practices.
What is Christianity right now, in the United States?
The words and works of Christ, a social club, and a tool to support or condemn things you like or dislike. Generally, you won’t hear much of necromancers and bloody conquests, much more focus on salvation, virtues, and the lessons of Christ: turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, and such.
What if things aren’t going perfectly ‘to plan’, due to free will? Then it’s humanity that’s wanting, not God.
What if there is no “plan”? It’s not as settled a point of Christianity as you might think.
I’m surely capable of preventing some suffering. I could sell everything I own and fly to Africa and starting handing out food and condoms. If I don’t, does that mean I enjoy the suffering of others on some level? Or that I have other responsibilities, just as God could hold maintaining free will to be an ultimate responsibility?
Exactly, the goals and objectives are largely unknowable, if you accept an omnipotent and omniscient divine being.
God: A poorly written fantasy character in public domain.
Christianity: One of many groups of overly dedicated God-LARPers that take the game far too seriously.
But it’s not suffering as an end to itself; THAT would be sadism.
I agree that holding such a view means that you cannot reasonably hold that the Bible is the perfect Word of God. If you are willing to let that idea go, then you can pick and choose tenets if you wish.