Rituals within religion - why?

[nobspeople]

Face one direction to pray.
Wearing specific pieces of clothing at specific times.
Eating specific foods.
Not eating specific foods.
Killing of animals as offerings.
Adorning the blood of an innocent animal around a door.

The list is almost endless as, within many religions, there are certain 'things' people can do or don't do, often at specific times and or for specific reasons. Some seem odd, some ridiculously stupid and others just don't make any logical sense (such is religion - there's little logic within it). But people do them because 'they're supposed to' because they 'represent' this or that.

While rituals do tend to 'help' (be it the passing of time, a sense of belonging, synchronizing of heart rates, etc), when dealing with a supreme being, what benefit do they have for it?

Surely, said being knows all (even knowing things about you that are absent in your own consciousness), so what difference does it make, to this being, what you wear when, why you face this direction instead of that, blood of an innocent animal (which is highly barbaric)?

What point do these things serve to this being?

[Paul of Tarsus]

While rituals do tend to 'help' (be it the passing of time, a sense of belonging, synchronizing of heart rates, etc), when dealing with a supreme being, what benefit do they have for it?

Surely, said being knows all (even knowing things about you that are absent in your own consciousness), so what difference does it make, to this being, what you wear when, why you face this direction instead of that, blood of an innocent animal (which is highly barbaric)?

What point do these things serve to this being?

Religious rituals have a purely human component to them--they serve as a way to unify the people in the sect by giving them common ground and asking them to cooperate with each other. Since religions tend to involve many people, their unification and cooperation is vital to the sect's functioning and survival.

So God isn't served at all by these rituals. He doesn't need them or want them. People need them and want them.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Nothing humans do can benefit a Supreme Being. If it could, that Being would not be supreme. Rituals make no difference to a Supreme Being. Rituals impart meaning or status to the people who undergo the ritual.

I agree, but wouldn't that be true for almost every aspect of religion? Religion seems to be purely human and nothing that God would need or want.

[nobspeople]

...
While rituals do tend to 'help' (be it the passing of time, a sense of belonging, synchronizing of heart rates, etc), when dealing with a supreme being, what benefit do they have for it?

Surely, said being knows all (even knowing things about you that are absent in your own consciousness), so what difference does it make, to this being, what you wear when, why you face this direction instead of that, blood of an innocent animal (which is highly barbaric)?

What point do these things serve to this being?

I think rituals are things that are done as habit. When people do things because it is a habit, it does not come from “heart” and then it is not good, because there is no good meaning for it.

'These people draw near to me with their mouth, And honor me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrine rules made by men.'"
Matt. 15:8-9

When things come from heart, it tells that person has correct attitude and understanding and that is what really matters, not so much the action itself. For example, person could say 10 times “thank you God” in front of many people, without ever meaning it, and other person can say it silently in his mind and really mean it and it would then be more than the ten times told vain words.

So, rituals are bad?

I think rituals are things that are done as habit. When people do things because it is a habit, it does not come from “heart” and then it is not good, because there is no good meaning for it.

[bjs1]

Nothing humans do can benefit a Supreme Being. If it could, that Being would not be supreme. Rituals make no difference to a Supreme Being. Rituals impart meaning or status to the people who undergo the ritual.

I agree, but wouldn't that be true for almost every aspect of religion? Religion seems to be purely human and nothing that God would need or want.

It is true that God has no need of religion, or of anything else from people. We add nothing to God, and our loss would take nothing from God.

Now it is possible for a Supreme Being to desire something. For instance, God might desire that people visit orphans and widows in their distress and that people keep themselves from being polluted by the world (James 1:27). He might desire that people make this choice willingly instead of it being forced upon them. That is not a need. God is fine without it. But it could still be a want.

[Diagoras]

It is true that God has no need of religion, or of anything else from people. We add nothing to God, and our loss would take nothing from God.

This surprised me. Why would all those Old Testament rules exist if not because God wanted something (worship and sacrifices) from ‘his’ people? Taken literally, your depiction of God is that of a completely indifferent deity, not the ‘all-loving father’.

Now it is possible for a Supreme Being to desire something. For instance, God might desire that people visit orphans and widows in their distress

But at the same time, the loss of those widows and orphans wouldn’t mean anything to God? And if they did mean something, why wouldn’t he remove their distress - perhaps by revealing himself to them in a dream? An omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity could manage to do something, surely?

He might desire that people make this choice willingly instead of it being forced upon them.

When did God have a change of heart from his ‘Deuteronomy 28’ days, when not worshipping him was something that he was definitely not desiring?

[bjs1]

It is true that God has no need of religion, or of anything else from people. We add nothing to God, and our loss would take nothing from God.

This surprised me. Why would all those Old Testament rules exist if not because God wanted something (worship and sacrifices) from ‘his’ people? Taken literally, your depiction of God is that of a completely indifferent deity, not the ‘all-loving father’.

Quite the opposite is true. Human love has an element of need to it. Even at our best and most selfless, there is still something that we gain in the act of love.

This is not true for a Supreme Being. Within the Christian understanding, God loves people in a selfless way. He gains nothing from loving us. He lacked nothing before creating us. He loves us because He is love. He is not indifferent towards us, but He needs nothing from us. Only a Supreme Being can love in a way that is purely devoid of selfish need.

[Diagoras]

Within the Christian understanding, God loves people in a selfless way. He gains nothing from loving us. He lacked nothing before creating us. He loves us because He is love. He is not indifferent towards us, but He needs nothing from us. Only a Supreme Being can love in a way that is purely devoid of selfish need.

The evidence in 1 Samuel 3, Deuteronomy 7, and quite a bit of Joshua (to pick only a few examples) paints a rather different picture.

Aren’t tolerance and forgiveness important aspects of love? God shows a distinct lack of either in the Old Testament, and if love was truly the most important thing, then why not put ‘Love one another’ as the First Commandment?

I could also easily comment on the godly ‘love’ shown to slaves, women, homosexuals, etc. but that’s probably deserving of a separate thread.

[JehovahsWitness]

Only a Supreme Being can love in a way that is purely devoid of selfish need.

The evidence in 1 Samuel 3, Deuteronomy 7, and quite a bit of Joshua (to pick only a few examples) paints a rather different picture.

No it does not.The evidence in 1 Samuel 3, Deuteronomy 7, and quite a bit of Joshua (to pick only a few examples) paints a picture of a loving and wise God.

Aren’t tolerance and forgiveness important aspects of love?

Yes they are

God shows a distinct lack of either in the Old Testament, ....

No he does not.

...if love was truly the most important thing, then why not put ‘Love one another’ as the First Commandment?

Because for a bible believers, loving one another isn't more important than loving God.


Does love tolerate wickedness?
viewtopic.php?p=952839#p952839

[Tcg]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I think it is in part to help make the absurd seem believable. Take the Catholic mass for example:



If rather than the above, imagine being picked up by some dude in his business casual attire driving a aged minivan who gives you a ride to the local Stop-N-Shop. He runs in and buys a loaf of Wonder Bread and a 2 liter bottle of Grape Nehi. He pulls out a slice, hands it to you and says, "Take eat, this is the body of Christ." Then he hands you the Grape soda and tells you to take a swig saying, "Take drink, this is the blood of Christ." The man would be considered mad.

For some reason if you give a priest a fancy robe, a fancy cracker and some fancy goblets and a whole congregation joins in, some folks will buy the fantasy hook, line and sinker.


Tcg

[Diagoras]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #19]

Does ‘Love’ play favourites? bjs1 has been claiming ‘God is Love’ in support of the argument that God doesn’t need rituals (or anything else from humans). I don’t see how this Old Testament god’s treatment of Canaanites, Amakelites, etc. can be viewed in any light other than a story of a deity playing favourites.

A parent with say, six children would love them all equally, surely? Even if they are disrespectful and cause trouble. God appears to still be keen on annihilating many of his ‘children’ that don’t slavishly worship him - even after the whole ‘flood’ incident when he wiped out everyone apart from Noah.