"Worship!" Proves the 'god' of the Bible is not God

[Diogenes]

Credit to Boatsnguitars for Why Ought we Worship God?, this question for debate asks, "Didn't the Bible tell us, in its beginning, that the god it promotes is merely a tribal god, an object of worship rather than a true God that does not need to be worshiped?

The god of the Bible seems to act so very much like a human. He wants to be worshiped and loved and is, he says, jealous and angry... vengeful and vindictive... but "he loves us."

I would expect a true creator of the universe to be calm and confident; above even the issue of confidence. Having made the universe and all its creatures, he would understand us very well and laugh at the idea he needed anything, let alone praise. Why would he need or want validation? I would expect he would love all his creation, every tribe and every person, else why would he create them? Why would he have a "chosen" tribe or family, one above all others?

Instead, the image of the 'god' of the Bible is of one exactly like us with all our issues. 'He' is exactly the kind of 'god' man would invent to be used to reinforce tribal rules and the power of the leaders to control the crowd and make things run smoothly. The 'god' of the Bible resembles a fictitious tool, an implement to keep the unruly in line.

[Diogenes]

Each one decides if he wants to worship the Creator or not.

He decides if he wants to let those who do not respect him live longer, despite having been the one who gave us life and continues to sustain it.

Since everything that sustains us is maintained by Him, He has every right to stop giving it to those who do not recognize it...

No. We do not "decide" if we want to worship some 'god.' There must be plenty of atheists who would love to believe there was some god who would give us eternal life in paradise rather than death, nonexistence. But a condition precedent to worship is the belief the god actually exists. There are many atheists who, tho' they'd love to believe, will not violate their code of intellectual honesty by trying to persuade themselves of a false belief in order to feel better.

You mention 'not respecting the Creator.' "Respect" is the wrong word. One neither respects, nor disrespects something or someone they do, not believe exists. Without honest belief, the question of respect does not arise.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Yet there is a 'decision' to be made. I think it gets confused. One can decide whether to 'Really read the Bible' as I was asked to and found a LOT of problems as a result. I reported back and was met with excuses, evasion and denial from a good man and a colleague, even a friend. My first experience of Faithbased denial.

But that is what Faith does - it makes them fiddle the evidence. I asked honest questions and I hope, I still do. This is a choice or a decision - whether to consider this debate with an open mind (not in the evangelical sense where open mind means uncritically swallowing faithclaims - while of course rejecting anything that doesn't fit it ). or to become the Dogmatic atheist that the other side accuse us of being.

That said, when the evidence piles up then one may buy in or out. One is persuaded or not. It happens ...well it's not quite a choice but the persuasive weight (whether presented fairly or not) causes an innate buy in or conversion, or buy out and deconversion, and that Happens, it isn't 'Chosen'.

The process of persuasion is more complex, the more one digs, but yes, one does not choose faith or unfaith; it sorta happens and one cannot unhappen it. The evidence will persuade the believer even while they thought they believed (there are many accounts of that) and I don't know how faithbased dismissal of evidence and argument will stand up. I was faced with biased dismissal of evidence with the 'fossil soft tissue'. I looked for possible explanations, but I knew this (if true) was a real challenge to Old Earth. True, the evidence for Old Earth was too much just to be overturned by T Rex meat in a fossil and that idea suggested a preservation in stone which has to be geologically old. So while looking for 'excuses' there were good reasons to debate (as distinct from tossing Deep time overboard and going with Genesis), this was no One Shot win for YE Genesis -literalism.

Well as it turned out, it was misrepresented by the believers, but it did face me, not just with a problem of the science, but the choice: to consider the evidence fairly or to opt for the Belief and dismiss anything that contradicted.

Not too long since I (and atheists) were accused of 'emotional' apologetics. I suppose this implies bias - 'wanting to believe'. And aside from just muck -slinging, it is projecting the Faithbased excusing and dismissal that Biblefaith does onto us. Do atheists do it? Perhaps. There is a claim that (e.g) Paul (the one Corinthian) endorses the resurrection. I have to chose to dismiss or ignore it. I don't. I can't. It is Evidence. Given that Paul looks real to me, the disciples are (credibly) also real and I have to credit their belief in the resurrection. But I also have to see that it is not the same story. Do the Believers accept that? No. Not in my experience.

So I think I choose to go with the evidence and they choose faithbased dismissal. Broadly. As to Belief, I once believed the resurrection accounts were true (though it supported the disciples removing Jesus) but, when the evidence against credibility piled up I couldn't Choose - buy -out happened and it couldn't be undone.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #54]

Namaskaram boatsnguitars

How do we know God loves us and wants us to love Him/Her? Do we love our children and want them to love us?

Here is some love from God...

https://carstenplougolsen.com/english-section/

For inspiration...



Your friend forever

Waterfall

Have you verified this with God? Because it looks to me like you found someone who says things you like and decided that what he says is true. How convenient.

Come back when you have actual evidence God agrees with you.

[Eloi]

...There must be plenty of atheists who would love to believe there was some god who would give us eternal life in paradise rather than death, nonexistence. ...

Thanks for letting me know.

I know I should do my best to help others answer their questions.

[TRANSPONDER]

...There must be plenty of atheists who would love to believe there was some god who would give us eternal life in paradise rather than death, nonexistence. ...

Thanks for letting me know.

I know I should do my best to help others answer their questions.

That's why we are all here, debating. How do we answer these questions? Faithclaims or logical consideration of evidence? Just now, I had to respond to someone posting a string of faithclaims that validated nothing whatsoever.

Yes, the offer of a really nice afterlife, guaranteed by a god is a nince fantasy, but that it is anything more than that is simply nothing more than a faithclaim. Preaching Bibletext is bad enough but preaching personal beliefs is even worse, but we get far too much of that, and it 'answers' nothing.

[1213]

You skipped right over post 33. I'll rephrase....

Does God want your worship?

I think I answered that already. I don't think Bible tells God wants it, therefore I have no reason to say He wants it.

[POI]

You skipped right over post 33. I'll rephrase....

Does God want your worship?

I think I answered that already. I don't think Bible tells God wants it, therefore I have no reason to say He wants it.

Well, you were stating he does not command it, which is difference. But no matter... Thanks for finally answering my question.

Does this mean if a Christian worships him, he disapproves? Does he tell you not to worship him anymore? Or, does worshipping him instead make him happy?

[1213]

...
Does this mean if a Christian worships him, he disapproves? ...

I believe He approves it, if done in a good way.

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such ones that worship Him.
John 4:23

Interesting thing is that for example Finnish translation uses word prayer in this, instead of worshiper.

[POI]

...
Does this mean if a Christian worships him, he disapproves? ...

I believe He approves it, if done in a good way.

Great, so he wants your worship then?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Does this mean if a Christian worships him, he disapproves? ...

I believe He approves it, if done in a good way.

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such ones that worship Him.
John 4:23

Interesting thing is that for example Finnish translation uses word prayer in this, instead of worshiper.

Grovelling to god, seems like evolution - macro and Micro are just larger and smaller examples of the same thing. So Worship and prayer seem the same thing, but one is on a bigger scale and the other on a smaller. One prays at home but worships in a Megachurch.

I was going to say that one asks for something in prayer, but just bounces around giving praise in a Megachurch, but one gives praise in prayer and prays for things in a church, so the two acts do seem the same, do they not? And done more for the doers, as God does not need it (even if he likes it almost as much as he used to like the smell of burning sheep).

It's rather nice to know that along with Hellthreat not always being an issue, the requirement for prayer and worship isn't important either. We may end up on the same page- - there in no point in religion.