Why worship gods?

[Zzyzx]

.
Simple question: Why worship gods?

[jgh7]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

However, there is a caveat here. If we are among those who feel that "what is right" is of such great importance, then we would automatically be as "worthy" as the God that we are imagining to stand for what is right.

Maybe this is why a certain God-candidate creates us in God's image and calls us to be like God...

100% agree.

Now the only other caveats to all this is having an open mind (since standing for what is right requires that) and the prickly issue of discerning right from wrong...

Could you elaborate on why we need an open mind in order to stand for what is right? Also, how do you think we can properly discern right from wrong? Can we do it on our own or do we need God in some way?

[Rufus21]

Jews, Christians, Muslims and some others believe God is good, and the source of all that is good.

I agree.

That inspires love.

I mostly agree. On rare occasions it can inspire very horrible and wicked things.

This is in contrast to pagan motivation to worship their "gods" which seems to be mostly fear and appeasement, (modern Wiccans and neopagans excepted.)

The Jewish/Christian/Muslim God doesn't demand worship through fear and appeasement? Did I read the wrong Old Testament?

[Rufus21]

You shouldn't.

No being should be given that kind of deference without being fully understood first and be fully worthy of worship second.

But even then, SHOULD we worship that being?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 11 by jgh7]

Could you elaborate on why we need an open mind in order to stand for what is right? Also, how do you think we can properly discern right from wrong? Can we do it on our own or do we need God in some way?

Elaborated a bit in previous post (#9)... Let me try again here.

On the need for an open mind:

None of us is perfect. And I don't think "right and wrong" lends itself to clear formulas or rules that could let us determine them without error.

So really, an open mind is necessary because discerning right and wrong, such as they are, requires a humble approach that accepts this extremely complex reality.

The discernment process is best done together, through genuine debate, where participants speak their minds, and stand their ground, but also listen, and are receptive to different ideas, and are truly willing to change because, above all, they care about what is right (versus what they believe).

On how to properly discern right from wrong:

A bit of the mechanics described above. What I think is missing from that, at least in part, is common value and vision.

What is it that grounds us as we stand our ground? What is it that we are working toward? These need to be shared, I think, by the participants in the debate that tries to discern what is right. They are the necessary context to make sense of any claims made.

And here, I think, is where we need to make a move that strips away everything that would bias us. We need to let go all of our own interests, as much as we can, to create as objective a ground as possible.

What this means, to me at least, is that what grounds us needs to be a care or interest in life of every kind. No hierarchy. No one over the other. Not my family or interests over yours. Not human cares over plant or animal. No artificial systems of hierarchy but, as pure as possible, love of all things. The small, ugly and weak as much as the big, beautiful and strong.

This "common, objective ground" can then translate into a vision where the world is full of life of every kind. Where life of every kind can be itself and flourish in the world. Where lions lay down with lambs.

With that common ground and vision, assuming we can agree to such a thing, we can then have the debate, and work to the best of our ability what is right in that context...

It makes some things easy. If we see a hungry child, the right thing to do is feed them. If we see an oppressive system, the right thing to do is to break it open. But some things will never be easy, and will require hard, final decisions (where we may very well be wrong). If we see a world overrun with evil, choking out all life, is the right thing to wash it all away, so that life can start fresh, and have a chance? ...

Can we do it on our own or do we need God in some way?

There is nothing in what I have said that requires a God of any manner.

That said, I do think the biblical God shares this ground and vision, and calls us to be like God, and to enter into the pursuit and stand for righteousness with God.

But that same God also wants to rest (on the seventh day) and clearly goes away on long voyages, trusting us take up the slack in God's absence. In other words, I think the biblical God would agree with me that we don't need God to do this.

[KenRU]

You shouldn't.

No being should be given that kind of deference without being fully understood first and be fully worthy of worship second.

But even then, SHOULD we worship that being?

If a being is as powerful as gods are purported to be, and this being is fully understood, and it was a being I believed was completely benevolent and compassionate, then I could possibly support the worship of such a being.

But those are a lot of ifs. We're speaking in abstracts. I could imagine a being worthy of worship (in my book) but he isn't represented by any of the gods I am currently aware of.

-all the best

[Clownboat]

.
Simple question: Why worship gods?

For many, not knowing is just too uncomfortable. Especially for the big questions like why am I here, what happens when I die, will I ever see my loved ones again?

Rather than admit that we don't know, it is comforting to pretend that you do know.

Also, humans have evolved to assign 'agency' to things. So inventing an agent/god to supply us with these answers is also comforting.

This is my take anyway. I don't think any religion actually worships their god or gods because any of the claimed gods are real. They are comforting, but that does not make them any more real then believing in some form of reincarnation so we can live on after death.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

However, there is a caveat here. If we are among those who feel that "what is right" is of such great importance, then we would automatically be as "worthy" as the God that we are imagining to stand for what is right.

Maybe this is why a certain God-candidate creates us in God's image and calls us to be like God...

100% agree.

Now the only other caveats to all this is having an open mind (since standing for what is right requires that) and the prickly issue of discerning right from wrong...

I personally have no 'prickly issues' of discerning right from wrong. Especially for myself. And when it comes to other people's behavior, I'll leave it up to them to discern what they believe to be right from wrong for them.

After all Theophile, if you and I both agree that God represents "what is right", but we can't agree with each other on "what is right", then clearly we can't claim to be worshiping the same God.

[theophile]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

After all Theophile, if you and I both agree that God represents "what is right", but we can't agree with each other on "what is right", then clearly we can't claim to be worshiping the same God.

Don't you see, it is our very difference of opinion that is both critical to discerning what is right and what makes discerning what is right such a prickly thing...

What good is it when all of us blink and nod in agreement? That is when I would be scared that we are heading down the wrong path... That we need someone who thinks differently to knock us out of our reverie.

Much better chance we'll do what is right when there is vigor and life and debate. And all of that is driven by difference.

So great that you're comfortable. But you should want to be made uncomfortable if we are truly on the same page on this.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 10 by theophile]

Woah, slow down. I was speaking in general, not of any particular God-candidate...

Again, for me to call any god "God," then what I said must be true. That god must stand for what is right in order for me to acknowledge the worthiness of that god and call them "God."

Now, if I wanted to defend the particular God-candidate that you are clearly referring to here:

(1) I would need a clearer reference, i.e., biblical citations.

Done.

Numbers 31

[15] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
[16] Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Joshua 6

[20] So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
[21] And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Ezekiel 9

[4] And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
[5] And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
[6] Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
[7] And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.


Joshua 11:19-20 (NIV)

19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Samuel 1 15:

[2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

(2) I would make a few general remarks: namely, that standing for what is right does not mean that God is always right... I would be willing to bend on this so long as the God-candidate strives always to do what is right, and sets the example of doing so, even when it means making the hard, terrible decisions that I think righteousness sometimes demands. Even when it means doing something incredibly hard and against all of one's own interests... Even when it means completely having ones mind changed, being open to the views of others on what rightness demands...

Is it really your position that a God who is not always right, who apparently makes mistakes and is fallible, is really a God you would (do?) follow and worship? Dogs follow people worshipfully. But we are not God's. We are not dogs either, eagerly licking the hand of those more powerful than us.

When I say that God stands for what is right I do not mean that God is perfect in righteousness. But rather perfect in seeking out what is right and doing what needs to be done, no matter what it is, when it is the right thing to do. Being upright and unyielding in the pursuit and execution of what is right.

How can a God who is not perfect in every way truly be considered a God? Would you consider an alien being with better technology than we possess a God? Because if we could go back in time to the ancient Sumerian city of Ur with our tanks and helicopters they might very well consider us Gods. And yet we are pretty darned far from being Gods. Mainly and precisely because we are still fallible and not perfect in every way.

Now whether "hacking children and babies to death" could ever be right, that's a toughy.

I can see how one could mistakenly believe that. But can we acknowledge the worthiness of a God-candidate that would make such a mistake? ... It certainly feels disqualifying, doesn't it.

I don't for a moment suppose that any such deity ever existed to begin with. But if I did, I certainly would not consider such a Being the ultimate model of that which represents all that is right. Because of the actions described in the OT were "right," then "right" has no meaning that I can comprehend.

Again, we need biblical citations here. Because we often have people in the bible acting on what they believe is right and speaking in the bible as if that is what the biblical God demands. But as many have cited on this site in a particular powerful verse that I forget (I believe it is in Jeremiah), sometimes those so called "prophets" and "scribes" speak nothing but lies...

From above: (check your own Bible)

Numbers 31:
[15] And Moses said unto them,
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones,

Joshua 6:
[21] And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Ezekiel 9:
[4] And the LORD said unto him,
[6] Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women:

Samuel 1 15:
[2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

No, the Bible is very specific you see. God ordered the killing of entire peoples, right down to the smallest infant. Thousands of defenseless victims.

In fact the killing was so horrific that those involved in carrying it out were required to remain apart from the main body of the Jewish people and undergo seven days of ritual purification before they could rejoin the group. (Numbers 31:19-24)

Hence we need to be real careful, and why we need citations, to see who is really commanding such actions as this... And doing so "in God's name."

The individuals issuing the instructions to the Jewish soldiers were Moses, Joshua, Ezekiel and Samuel. If these individuals were not speaking for God "in God's name," then the entire Bible is a meaningless fraud, and was in reality written by humans for human purposes. Much, I suspect, the way you have always supposed that the Qur'an (Muslim), the Rigveda and Bhagavad Gita (Hindu), the Pali Canon and the Sutras (Buddhists), and all the other sacred texts of every other non Christian religion that has ever existed are in reality nothing more than the ruminations of humans for human purposes, and nothing more. One of the things that every religion has in common is the unquestionable certainty that their beliefs are the real, true and genuine beliefs.

Is it really God? Or are they one of the liars that Jeremiah would have us guard against?

Why unquestionably assume that Jeremiah, an ancient ignorant iron age middle eastern man who lived circa the 7th century BC, actually had any special incite or understanding into how the universe actually worked either?. Unless he really was in contact with God, and legitimately speaking in God's name. Much as Moses, Joshua, Ezekiel and Samuel claimed to be.


Or...perhaps it is long past time to put this ancient make believe behind us, and start listening to what the universe actually has to say to us. Because while some among us are still immersed in ancient iron age mythology, and are perpetuating an ancient end of the world death wish longing for the return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, others among us have been are learning what the universe has to say and as a result have been busily inventing computers and putting robots on other planets.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Hi EJ, thanks for the considered reply.

Simple question: Why worship gods?

All "gods" are not the same. So allow me to rephrase just a bit, from my Monotheistic perspective.

Why worship the Living God?

What, exactly is 'the Living God' and how is it known to be different from thousands of other proposed gods?

Love.

As we are aware, religionists have no exclusive rights / patent / copyright on love – which is available to and expressed by humans regardless of worship practices and beliefs.

Jews, Christians, Muslims and some others believe God is good, and the source of all that is good. That inspires love.

EJ, there seems to be at least as much hatred, divisiveness, exclusivity / exclusionism, suspicion, bigotry, etc among god-worshipers as among non-worshipers – and no more evidence of 'love'.

This is in contrast to pagan motivation to worship their "gods" which seems to be mostly fear and appeasement, (modern Wiccans and neopagans excepted.)

If fear of punishment in an 'afterlife' was removed from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, would they not likely lose much of their sales appeal, recruitment and retention?

Atheists, of course, have no motivation to worship something or someone whom they don't believe exists.

Yet, Atheists are just as capable of love as Theists. What is the gain in that respect from worshiping?


Here are some suggestions for 'why worship':

Allows one to feel 'chosen' without effort other than worshiping

Provides a social outlet for those in need of such and a sense of belonging (to a group) and furnishes an opportunity for group acceptance by fellow believers (for no reason other than shared religious beliefs).

Gives people pat answers to supposedly 'big' questions without assurance the answers are truthful, accurate or applicable.

Relieves worshipers from the necessity of making many decisions (just follow religious rules)

Provides structure in life for those who need / desire external structure

Keeps some from running amok with personal desires (according to claims made in debate)

Avoids the necessity of understanding difficult concepts involved in cause-and-effect relationships in nature / the real world. 'Goddidit' is far simpler than studying meteorology, biology, physics, etc.

Others?