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.
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?
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.
Sure, these questions apply to any deity that created the universe or takes an active role in it.
I agree that it doesn’t follow from those four items, it must be stipulated separately.
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.
Ah, ok then.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
It’s been a theme in his posts that humans can’t and shouldn’t judge God because [vagueness].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 -
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.
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.
