Why worship gods?

[Zzyzx]

.
Simple question: Why worship gods?

[Willum]

Every so often "I'll pray to a god that I don't believe in."
I find it relieves stress - as if by expressing something to the universe,it will change something.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 20 by Zzyzx]

Brief reply for now, more considered one perhaps later.

You seem to be addressing some implications I was not addressing. Not my intention to contrast Theist ability to love, vs non-Theist ability (or inclination) to love. I realize both groups are quite capable of love.

I was addressing, why worship God? I'm just saying ideally, the motive is, (or should be) love, not fear.

Love must have an object. For Theists, it is love of God and neighbor. For non-Theists, it is love of fellow human beings. If one does not believe in God, God is not part of the "equation". At least not consciously.

Yes, there are some social motivations that may come into play, as you enumerated. But those are not ideal. Ideally the motive should be to seek a love-based connection to the Creator, whom the Theist believes in.

That gives a sense of peace and perspective in this life.

Yes, there are nasty Theists on the planet. But I think they are missing the point of religion, relationship to God.

If one's behavior is not marked by love towards one's fellow humans, I would question the authenticity of that particular relationship. That fact, makes me question the humans involved, not the God they profess to follow.

[Elijah John]

.
[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?

Also, Z, why not stick with the "majority" God?. That of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Most believers in the God of Abraham see YHVH and Allah as one in the same. Only Fundamentalists and Jehovah's Witnesses (ie Biblical literalists) seem to have a problem with that idea.

Also, for most intents and purposes, the only God represented here on these boards in any significant number is the God of Abraham. When I say "the Living God" I mean the God of Abraham.

Not sure why you put up "thousands of proposed gods" when not many folks here on our forums are proposing them!

"Straw gods," seems to me.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was addressing, why worship God? I'm just saying ideally, the motive is, (or should be) love, not fear.

Okay -- understand and agree. IF one chooses to worship gods it seems as though 'love' would be a better motivation than 'fear'.

I question why one should worship a god for love or fear.

[Zzyzx]

.

For many, not knowing is just too uncomfortable.

Evidently you are right for many or most people.

However, I have never had trouble acknowledging to self or others, 'I don't know'. Doing so relieves me of assumed responsibility for concocting 'explanations' for things beyond my comprehension.

If encountering things I should know, I set about to learn -- from reliable, verifiable sources and/or direct personal involvement. This attitude has enabled me to learn things from welding and woodworking to whitewater rafting to lecturing university graduate classes (and all sorts of things between).

It starts with, 'I don't know' and proceeds to 'I can learn'.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by theophile]

The truth is that the only god that we could possibly acknowledge as worthy doesn't have any of these qualities necessarily. The only quality that matters is that the god stands for what is right.

That is the only reason why we should acknowledge the worth of a god.

Okay
1) What is 'right'?
2) Why bother with the god at all, if he's also going to stand for what is 'right'? Why not just acknowledge the right without having to plug a god into the equation?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

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

And yet we can see some people who say God is good, the source of all that is good...and go out and kill people. Strange that.
For example, you could have someone who believes God is good, the source of all that is good, and who also believes that witchcraft is of the devil, and goes out and murders those whom they believe to be witches. They could claim to love the witch, claim that them killing that person is them saving their soul from the devil, preventing them from being taken by the devil, delivering their soul up to God.
(note, I am not saying I agree with that line of reasoning, I am including it as an example of how God-believers can think and act)

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

I had a debate going with a forum user about a week or two ago? (can't remember exactly how long ago it was). This user is Christian, Eastern Orthodox, and the reason they gave for why they believe this god to be in the right is because he has ultimate power, he can reward and punish, he can dictate what is moral. So no, it's not just pagans who do as you say. The behaviour isn't exclusive to them.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Elijah John]

Also, Z, why not stick with the "majority" God?.

Argument from popularity fallacy.

Most believers in the God of Abraham see YHVH and Allah as one in the same.

How can they be the same? The three gods of the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam share a common core of mythological origins, but they are very different creatures later on. Christianity's God incarnates as Jesus Christ, dies on the cross and is resurrected. Islam's God teaches that that didn't happen, it was a deception and that to believe any human can be divine is a sin.

Also, for most intents and purposes, the only God represented here on these boards in any significant number is the God of Abraham. When I say "the Living God" I mean the God of Abraham.

Again, argument from popularity. In your view, the God of Abraham is the one living God, but not in my eyes or Z's.

ot sure why you put up "thousands of proposed gods" when not many folks here on our forums are proposing them!

I suspect Z's reason is the same as mine. He mentioned them to point out that just because you personally believe this one specific god to be real, does nothing to establish that it actually is real. In a hypothetical world, Z could be talking to a version of you who worships Zeus, or Horus.
Throughout history, all sorts of gods have been imagined, all sorts of religions have been the most popular for a time.
In our eyes, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about Christianity. Subjectively yes...it is the most popular religion in the world during our lifetimes, but whose to say that it will always be so?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by Elijah John]

Also, Z, why not stick with the "majority" God?.

Argument from popularity fallacy.

Most believers in the God of Abraham see YHVH and Allah as one in the same.

How can they be the same? The three gods of the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam share a common core of mythological origins, but they are very different creatures later on. Christianity's God incarnates as Jesus Christ, dies on the cross and is resurrected. Islam's God teaches that that didn't happen, it was a deception and that to believe any human can be divine is a sin.

Also, for most intents and purposes, the only God represented here on these boards in any significant number is the God of Abraham. When I say "the Living God" I mean the God of Abraham.

Again, argument from popularity. In your view, the God of Abraham is the one living God, but not in my eyes or Z's.

ot sure why you put up "thousands of proposed gods" when not many folks here on our forums are proposing them!

I suspect Z's reason is the same as mine. He mentioned them to point out that just because you personally believe this one specific god to be real, does nothing to establish that it actually is real. In a hypothetical world, Z could be talking to a version of you who worships Zeus, or Horus.
Throughout history, all sorts of gods have been imagined, all sorts of religions have been the most popular for a time.
In our eyes, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about Christianity. Subjectively yes...it is the most popular religion in the world during our lifetimes, but whose to say that it will always be so?

Not an argument from popularity, not attempting to establish the truth of God at all, based on that particular fallacy. Rather trying to distinguish relevance from irrelevance. Small "g" gods plural is a red-herring, and a bit of a straw man argument. As most here are not "proposing thousands of gods".

Hindus perhaps, and Greco-Roman pagans. But even modern-day Wiccans and Neopagans limit themselves to smaller pantheons.

Equating the One God, with "thousands of proposed gods" is perhaps another good debate topic, but seems to be beyond the heart and scope of this here particular OP.

Unless of course Z, the OP author, wants to really get into the debate "are all gods equal"? Or "equally unreal"?

Could be wrong, but I don't think he wants to go down that path at this time.

That would divert and derail the "Why worship" question.

Regarding the God of Abraham approached in three different ways, (via Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the three approaches don't make Him three "gods". Again, only Fundamentalists, Jehovah's Witnesses other Biblical literalists, (and I guess some non-Theist outsiders) see it that way. Most Jews, mainline Christians and Muslims do not.

Jews, for example, see both Christianity and Islam as "daughter religions".

All worship the same God of Abraham.

[theophile]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Done.

I was hoping for one citation that could be focused on, not a bunch that will restrict ability to analyze... But let me make a few remarks to what you cite.

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.

Operative in this "and Moses said unto them." So I ask, who is it that is doing the ordering here? God or Moses? Looks like Moses, not even in the name of God in this instance. i.e., Moses did not say "God said." He is simply saying, on his own, that these people have acted contrary to God's will - so "let's destroy them."

As such, this is useless to your case that God orders the killing of children. This is a case against Moses, not God.

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.

Again, God isn't mentioned anywhere in all this. So good, you have some evidence that children were destroyed by an invading army. Where is the evidence that God (and God alone) commanded this specific act of destroying the children?

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I am looking at you to bring the evidence to make your case!

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.

This is interesting, and really makes my point if you think about it. Joshua is doing the ordering, therefore the order, to my point, is removed from God (thereby removing God from blame, at least partially). But more precisely, Joshua is translating Moses who is translating God...

Have you ever played the broken telephone game? Or heard the phrase "lost in translation"? Do you think the Hebrew literary imagination was not cognizant of this, and perhaps employed it to purpose? Plato used it, so why not the Jews?

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.

Samuel talking. Again, if not yet clear, I only fully trust as the word of God the words that come directly from God. Everything else is at least one layer removed and is immediately suspect as such. (Not to say God's words aren't suspect themselves, but this just adds more suspicion!)

As Jeremiah warns us, these prophets and scribes tell lies.

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.

BINGO! We have a winner! "And the Lord said unto him"! That's exactly what we need to see. Or much closer. Ezekiel is interesting as it's got a lot of what appear to be direct words from God, but also Ezekiel speaking as a prophet of God, i.e., "Thus says the Lord" kind of stuff. Really interesting example is Ezekiel 11:

[2] He said to me, “Mortal, these are the men who devise iniquity and who give wicked counsel in this city;
[3] they say, ‘The time is not near to build houses; this city is the pot, and we are the meat.’
[4] Therefore prophesy against them; prophesy, O mortal.�

After this, Ezekiel speaks in the name of the Lord at the Lord's request that he "prophesy"... But does he really speak for God when he does so? This is where it gets impossible to tell, and as such should have us, as a conscientious reader, ramp up our evaluation of everything, no matter who says it.

(My broader point being, as I'll get to later, that the bible is intentionally crafted to do this... i.e., to have us "ramp up our evaluation of things" and not dumbly accept, even the most glorious and wise of prophets...)

But enough on that. The children, that's what's important! And here, yes, it seems that God's mercy has reached a limit where even little children are no longer exempt... But still, God is not without mercy here! It is only those without marks who are to be destroyed...

This is important, because it means the real question of this citation is, who gets a mark and who doesn't? That's all left to the man in the linen to decide, and the story doesn't tell us!! For all we know, all the children in the city were marked and spared. It is unclear what calculus the man in linen uses... But I think we are clearly called to put ourselves in that man's shoes, and to ask that very question...

Let's try to do that, shall we? God's instructions to the man in linen were that only those who had no care about what Israel was doing were to be unmarked and destroyed. Those who did not "sigh and groan" at the abominations and the violence that Israel was causing throughout the land ...

So even more precisely, only those children who were so hard-hearted already as to have no care for what Israel was doing were to be destroyed...

This is extreme, yes, especially in our day. But let's look at some examples in our day and ask the question of who we would mark for saving...

Who is it that might fit this mold? What about the "little children" who commit mass school shootings? What about those who remorselessly taunt and bully a little girl to the point she kills herself?

Should these get a mark and be spared? ...

I'm not saying either way. What I am saying is that it is extremely grey. And even this verse that you cite doesn't make it clear or remove from us the need to really think hard about these questions... In fact, it compels us to ask these very questions!

That is the genius of it.

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.

If you read some of my other posts on this thread even, it should become clear that by "follow" I do not mean like a dog. I actually mean that we stand up to God when God makes mistakes, because to follow God is to stand and seek out as vehemently as God does what is right. And if God is wrong, that means wrestling with God, as per Jacob / Israel, all day and night even, until a victor emerges...

That is a true follower of God. Not someone who "nods and blinks" and dumbly follows.

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.

That's absurd. Again, my very first post on this thread: a lot of people value power (technology is power in what you say here). This leads to a notion of God as omnipotent. But power, to me, is not what makes someone worthy. It is standing for what is right that makes someone worthy or has them "in the spirit of God."

So no, I would not call an alien God, no matter their technology. Unless that alien was truly in the spirit of God and stood for what is right, and devoted all its power to that cause. That is what makes them worthy.

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.

I never said any such deity existed either, not in the sense you're suggesting. But let go of your modern sensibilities i.e., biases for a minute. Try to comprehend. If I look at the Ezekiel passage, what is the overarching thread after you get unstuck from the word "little children"?

Israel is extremely corrupt. They are causing violence throughout the land. There are irredeemable elements throughout the nation, and yes, some of these may be little children.

God wants to wipe those elements out so that those who are not irredeemable can be redeemed...

Is that overarching thread really so bad? To cut out the corrupted in order to save what is good? Doctors do it all the time. If your leg is rotten, you cut it off! That makes incredible sense to me, unfathomable though it may be... (Just as it is unfathomable to not mark a child to be saved, perhaps...)

What this story does not do is relieve from us the responsibility of identifying where to make the cut... The man in linen, i.e., each and every one of us, has an impossible burden to bear. That is what I hear this story really saying.

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.

Yes, it is very specific. And as I pointed out above, each of those citations is very specifically made questionable by an explicit act of translation within the text. Prophecy itself being an act of translation...

This isn't to excuse the "children" question (this is a massively important question as I've tried to stress), but it is to say that you are wrong to make this statement of God when it is made very clear in these texts that other people are speaking in God's name in most instances you cited.

The "children" question opens up a morass of moral grey-ness where we truly need to debate and ask the very question / burden that God and Ezekiel place on the man in linen: Who gets a mark? Who doesn't? Are all the children spared?...

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.

You like to make generalizations don't you? I am far more subtle than that, and certainly don't think what you suspect here about me.

Want to know my #2 after the bible? It's Nietzsche. I love his work. Affirm it (near) fully. Try to reconcile that with what you say here! ...

Again, I find worthy and call those God, or in the spirit of God, those who speak what is right. I don't care if they are a Muslim, Christian or atheist. I think Nietzsche was very much in the spirit of God! As much as he may have detested that identification...

And no, my whole argument here about not trusting without examination anyone in the bible (God included) does not make the bible a farce. What it does is restores the bible to what I think is its true purpose.

This is important:
With my approach, the bible becomes once again a didactic tool. It trains us in wisdom, or the discernment of right and wrong. It puts us on our guard and has us question everyone and everything, as we should if we truly care about what is right. It teaches us to seek out and stand up for what is right, and to question even those who, in all their power and glory and wisdom, may sometimes be wrong... It gives power to the one, weak voice who, when right, can topple those who are strong...

This is a much better purpose, I think, then what you seem to propose of the bible: that in reading it, we should just "nod and blink."

I utterly reject that view.

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.

I didn't "unquestionably assume" anything. I think Jeremiah was right in that verse I vaguely referenced. But not "unquestioningly" so. Again, stop with this whole "nod and blink" approach to the bible. When you do that, you rob it of its true value. You rob those who actually read it with a truly critical approach...

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.

If you really look at what I'm saying, i.e., post 14 on this very thread, you'll see that my views do not require God or the bible at all. Or in fact, that I don't think the bible or God requires God or the bible at all!

I think the God of the bible would throw out the bible if it caused precisely what you seem to think our attitude toward it should be: i.e., that we should just nod and blink and dumbly follow.

That is the furthest thing the biblical God wants of us. And not at all what it means to "follow" God on the path of righteousness... Again, just think Jacob / Israel. Did he dumbly follow God? ...