Does god seem a little needy for a perfect being?

[Everso]

If god is perfect why does he need all this praise and glorification? This to me seems like a flaw in his supposed perfection. He is also - self confessed - a jealous god. Is this not another failing?

From the outside he comes off as an angry child in need of constantly being told he is not only wonderful but their parents favorite child. This does not sound like any sort of perfect being to me.

Everso.

P.S. this is my first post. I have read the rules and as far as I can tell this is a valid question in the right place but please let me know if I have broken a rule and I will be happy to edit my post.

[Zzyzx]

.

God is complete in himself and needs nothing.

That statement is what is known as a pronouncement, conjecture, opinion or pontification. You are entitled to think that for yourself, but are not entitled to claim it as truth, particularly in debate. Others are entitled to ask for proof if you make the statement in public. In these debates, claims are required to be substantiated, and in this sub-forum the bible cannot be used for authoritative substantiation.

Do you intend to debate or to preach?

One does not have to "prove" everything for it to be true, this is a 21st century idiotic notion that dismisses the role deduction and logic has in reasonable analysis of information.

Bold added to a key phrase.

The information upon which deduction and logic are based is critical to reaching understanding or rational conclusion.

Is it a “a 21st Century idiotic notion to dismiss the role deduction and logic� in analysis of Fairies and Leprechauns – based upon books written about them? Is irrational to ask for proof that the characters and characteristics claimed in promotional books be shown to be valid BEFORE applying deduction and logic?

What is the value of deduction and logic regarding imaginary Fairies and Leprechauns?

Exactly the same applies to characters and characteristics of “gods� when there is no information available other than books relaying the thoughts, biases, and opinions of earlier humans.

Innumerable books have been written about thousands of different proposed “gods�. Which form a reasoned basis for application of deduction and logic – and why?

By definition, that which caused "everything" would not be dependent on said "everything" to exist (or else it/he would not be able to exist to be the *first cause*)

That may be true IF “that which caused ‘everything’ was more than an imaginary concept. Do you propose that it is more than an imaginary concept? If so, what do you offer to show that you speak truthfully and accurately?

It is intellectually lazy to not use ones power of deduction in the absence of "evidence".

In my opinion, it is worse than lazy, but is actually intellectually dishonest to apply “power of deduction� in the absence of evidence as a basis for thought – and to present the opinions developed thereby as truth.

I contend you (and those like you) are simply not "consciouse", as Jesus Christ put it, of that need, but that it is just as much a part of humans basic needs as the need to eat and sleep and to love and to be loved.

There are certain basic human needs. Absence of air, water, food and sleep prove fatal in varying but brief periods of time. A “need� for “love� may be important to most, but can be endured by many for long periods of time.

A supposed “need� for relationship with the Christian’s favored “god� CANNOT be shown to be necessary at all. Most of the world’s population survives quite well without that relationship.

I have prospered and lived a full and satisfying life for seventy years without a relationship with any “god�. How am I “disadvantaged� in any way? I certainly do not feel any “need� for such relationship.

Because religionists feel such “need� is not adequate justification for projecting their personal “needs� onto others.

There has never been a human society without religion,

All societies have sought to “explain� the unknown and usually evoked some form of “supernatural being� to fill in the gaps of knowledge. As knowledge increased, the need for such “explanations� decreased – and is declining in technological societies (including the US, though the rate is slower than characteristic of more mature societies).

and socialoligists contend that it seemed we are "hard wired" for religion, I propose that this is evidence of that we are indeed all created with some kind of spiritual inclination.

Correction: SOME sociologists and psychologists refer to such “hard wiring�.

I know what happens when we die - we are dead.The purpose of life is to do what you can for your own reasons, ideally without need to reference a spiritual boggy man who will spank you for an eternity if he didn't like what you did.

And what scientific proof do you have that permits you to make such a positive statement "I KNOW" - remember the proof will somehow have to document another dimension in another universe not accessible to the physical. As the most you can only say you don't "believe" this to be the case. To which I reply: "fair enough". For the record, neither do I.

Exactly the same can be said for proponents of “god beliefs�. No one should, in my opinion, claim to know that “gods� do or do not exist because such knowledge is simply not available to us. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish, but not to claim to KNOW.

Like all loving and sensible parents, God will indeed satisfy ALL our need but in due time in relation to the vital issues at hand.

In other words, if “needs� are met goddidit, if not “it isn’t time yet� or “god didn’t feel like it� or “you really didn’t need that� or “it is to teach you a lesson�.

So god only gave us all these wonderland but flawed gifts so he could then turn around when we were older and demand worship. [...]

That is exactly right.

Coerced worship is akin to forced love, in my opinion.

He doesn't force us to comply but it is not for us to impose our standards on him and deny him the right to demand what he BELIEVES he has the right to ask for.

Is anyone privy to what a “god� BELIEVES?

You may conclude personally that he has not right to believe as he does, you may even go so far that he has not right to express that belief and open his mouth and say what he believes he has the right to say, that again is your right.

Likewise, you may conclude personally what “rights� a “god� may have. However, you are NOT entitled to claim truth for your preferences, particularly in debate.

What you cannot do is impose your restriction on him and force him to silence.

What you cannot, honorably, do is claim to know what restrictions do or do not apply to a “god�.

His demands are recorded in the bible and the bible is not going anywhere. Thus what God wants from his Creation is out there, for better or worse.

The bible is a collection of writings of humans concerning their thoughts and opinions regarding “gods�. There are numerous similar works discussing competing “gods�. What such “holy books� have in common is absence of evidence that they are truthful or accurate.

god will punish you for an eternity if you do not worship him.

I am not Catholic, you will have to ask someone that believes in eternal torment/punishment about that. As my name suggests I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses - your statement implies you are not aware that not all Christians believe in eternal torment.

Some form of “punishment in an ‘afterlife’� is a common theme in Christianity. The nature of said punishment and whether it is “eternal� seems to be dependent upon what particular denomination or splinter group is being quoted.

Unlike in English, the Hebrew and Greek ze′los words translated “jealousy� in the Bible carry a wide range of meanings.

I would be more inclined to think it is you that are trying to warp the meaning to give a positive spin. How about to decide if it is a positive or negative thing we look at the situation and ignore the semantics and possible misinterpretations of translation.[/color]

I made a linguistiacally factual statement about the meaning of a Hebrew word. If you have anything serious to say about its translation please present (with relevant references) the evidence to support your counter-argument.

Why quibble about the meaning of a word when none of the words attributed to Jesus or “god� can be shown to be anything more than hearsay recorded decades or centuries after they were supposedly spoken -- recorded by unidentified people, quoting unknown sources of hearsay information?

[Everso]

One does not have to "prove" everything for it to be true,

Very true. However my issue - and an issue many others have is that many christians will not just keep their religion to themselves. I suspect if you went into a room and did a little praying and kept to your self no one would be asking for proof. The problem is christians ask for special concessions, no tax, their believes to be taught in school, their views be regarded as something you can't make fun of.

If you want us to do all this then give us proof you are worth this special treatment or shut up and we will stop asking for proof. If I came up with an idea - and demanded tax free status along with everyone being taught my ideas in school the yells for proof would ring from the pulpits all over the world. This is why you are constantly challenged - because you want us to accept your ideas. Rational thinking people will accept it - once you provide the proof that this isn't some multi-generational fairy story that happens to have caught on as a neat way of the ruling classes keeping the ignorant masses underfoot with the threat of an eternal bogey man.

To name some of those "certain need":

• * the need for air. This need has been fulfilled (satisfied) by putting humans on a planet with a sufficient supply of air and lungs that can process it.
  *Another need is the need for water. This need has been satisfied by putting humans on a planet with an abundant supply of water.

So as I said, God "God has created humans with "certain needs"

Ok - so we have air. Many people do not have water, or food, or warmth, shelter .... You can not even begin to pretend that all of mankind needs are met. Not even the most basic of needs are taken care of for many many people. But to your all powerful god this could all be fixed with the wave of his hand and a beneficent smile. If he were to do that even I would worship him.

There has never been a human society without religion, and socialoligists contend that it seemed we are "hard wired" for religion, I propose that this is evidence of that we are indeed all created with some kind of spiritual inclination.

There also - as far as I am aware - never been a society without murders, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, sadist, lairs ... the list goes on. "Because we always have" if a poor excuse for religion.

And what scientific proof do you have that permits you to make such a positive statement "I KNOW" - remember the proof will somehow have to document another dimension in another universe not accessible to the physical. As the most you can only say you don't "believe" this to be the case. To which I reply: "fair enough". For the record, neither do I.

I will withdraw the "I KNOW" and replace it with "The best scientific evidence to date".

Like all loving and sensible parents, God will indeed satisfy ALL our needs but in due time in relation to the vital issues at hand.

Hang on. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Is your claim that god CAN give us everything we need but is too busy and will take care of our needs when he has a free minute? There are millions of people who are born, live and die without never knowing a days contentment. Not going to bed hungry and cold. Isn't he cutting it a little fine? Now I know when I was a child Christmas seemed a long way off but I at least had the weight of previous years to inform me that presents would be arriving. Your god is making promises no one has seen fulfilled yet.

That is exactly right. He doesn't force us to comply...

His demands are recorded in the bible and the bible is not going anywhere.

You seem a little confused here. You start out saying he does not force us then change to saying his demands are recorded. I still contend he is an angry spoiled child who will lash out if he does not get what he wants.

I am not Catholic, you will have to ask someone that believes in eternal torment/punishment about that. As my name suggests I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses - your statement implies you are not aware that not all Christians believe in eternal torment. In any case I respectfully inform you that the bible does not teach that humans will be eternally punished (I take this to mean eternally "burnt/tortured in hell" for refusing to worship Him.

Ok so soul annihilated. Not the mainstream vision but I am sure you will agree not a desirable outcome.

I made a linguistically factual statement about the meaning of a Hebrew word. If you have anything serious to say about its translation please present (with relevant references) the evidence to support your counter-argument. In the absence of your demonstrating that the original Hebrew did NOT allow for both positive or negative understanding, your comment is quite frankly unworthy of any further response. I respectfully decline a quite ludicrous invitation to ignore the body of scholarly research and understanding as to the meaning of a word (as derived from both a knowledge of the language and contexual analysis of its occurances) in favor of a purely personal interpretation of "the situation" (whatever that vague, probably subjective and entirely unacademic expression may mean to you).

I agree that there are different possible interpretations of the word jealous. I said that. Many learned scholars on both sides can argue about spelling, semantics, meaning, context etc and will end up with the "agree to disagree". This is why I said we should look at the actions of your god to see what the true meaning is. And frankly I stand by what I have said - he is mean and gets outright nasty if he does not get his own way.

Everso

[The Nice Centurion]

First I have to say that your conception of God seems very immature and undeveloped. But if that's what you choose to believe, that's on you, not God..

My God is not needy, he is all giving and loving - quite the opposite of yours. I would choose to be an atheist before accepting a god like yours...

No offense intended, but you might want to try imagining God in a more positive manner.

If your intent is to justify atheism, your god is very easy to reject. How about justifying rejecting a giving god of love and mercy?

I disagree with your assesment of God's character.
When I was a child, my father used to read to me from the Bible.
I always remember how the following story upset me.
See what you think.
They placed the ark of God on a new cart that they might bring it from the house of Abinadab which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were leading the new cart. So they brought it with the ark of God from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Ahio was walking ahead of the ark. Meanwhile, David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD with all kinds of instruments made of fir wood, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets and cymbals. But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it.
And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God

Would it have been better if Uzzah allowed the Ark to fall off the cart?
What kind of God would kill a man whose intent was to do a good deed?

Christ Shepherd

First; Very interesting that NO ONE yet, dared try giving an answer here.

Second; At first thought me seems that the christian god just wanted to prove his might here.

Third; Dont forget that the Ark held the Plates with the 10 commandments. (The Prototype for Labans Brass Plates, Joseph Smiths Golden Plates and James Stranges Bronze Plates.)

Now today, all four sets of plates are lost to us, sadly.
But what if back that day the Commandments had landed in the dirt? (Like the Ayatollah Khomeini during his burial rites when too much muhammedans were struggling trying to touch his coffin while, transported, at the same time.

Perhaps it was planned by the christian god that by falling off the cart a certain set of events were to begin (like in Butterfly Effect), that would have preserved both Command Plates until today?

In this case Uzzahs sacrilege would have ruined everything and the christian god would have struck out in frustrated anger!

Think about it.

[1213]

If god is perfect why does he need all this praise and glorification?

Is there some reason to believe God wants our praise and glorification?

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed any-thing, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25

...He is also - self confessed - a jealous god. Is this not another failing?...

In Bible the "jealous" seems to mean that God cares what is His and doesn't want to lose it to someone else. I don't think that is a failing to be caring.

[The Nice Centurion]

If god is perfect why does he need all this praise and glorification?

God is complete in himself and needs nothing. We however need him and he deeply desires us to have all we need to be happy.

Says who
Really, I mean it
You are obviously Begging the Question