Yes, I’d say it’s a mainstream Christian belief, based on those numbers.
Probably a topic for another thread, but I agree that Mother Teresa’s beliefs were at odds with morality as I see it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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. 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:
So there is plenty of biblical support for such a view of Hell being one of eternal torment.
The benefit must be pleasure for it to be sadism, and specifically pleasure that arises from inflicting pain.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Because it’s supported by the Bible. What that fate actually is, however, is much less clear.
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 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.
“much less clear” ? How about there is zero evidence to suggest any fate after death exists?
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.
True. I suppose the theist arguement would be that faith is required, which means there cannot be factual evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
