Forum: 

Like to hear Your Thoughts

Exodus's picture
Submitted by Exodus on

Ok, well i have found a very large (And interesting post) on the www.modthesims2.com forums *Yes im kinda a sims geek* and it was a user called loki_666 raising a point on why worship a supreme being here it is:

Ok, the long running evoloution thread is boring me a bit now so thought i would try posting another controvertial question.

For the purpose of this thread we will assume a God or Gods DO EXIST. Whether it be Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Buddha, or some unnamed entity, so please, no "There is no God posts".

Also please remember to be civil.... I dont want this thread closing because of idiotic or nasty comments. Please respect others opinions, but also try not to take offence if someone is making a joke. I know it can be a fine line between making a joke and offending someone when dealing with such a sensetive topic but try to be relaxed about peoples comments.

So, anyway, here is the question:

Why worship any sumpreme being?

Just because God exisits (remember, we are asssuming he/she/it/they do/does/did/will exist) and maybe even created Humanity, what right does he have to be worshipped?

Now some random thoughts from me:

The best i am willing to offer is, that if God is the creator of me then i would be willing to honour him like i honour my parents. However, if my parents said to me dont eat pork unless its kosher i would (polietly) tell them to take a flying leap. Why should a God dictate to me how to live my life. Of course, i have my own moral code that isnt far off what the bible and most other religions preach but im not going to do what God says if i consider it irrational.

Dont eat pork... Forget it!

Dont covet my neighbours ass.... forget it!

Circumcision.... forget it! I like my penis the way it is than you very much God!!!

Very glad my parents arnt Jewish.... i would have had to have a serious chat with them by now.

When i was a teenager i had explained to my mum how i was very annoyed she chose to baptise me when i was only a few weeks old. She couldnt understand that she had no right to choose my religion for me. Anyone else feel that parents should not choose the religion of their children but wait until the child can make an informed choice? I suspect if religious people/churches didnt indoctrinate from an early age then religion would be a pretty rare thing by now). The mind of a child is much more malleable than that of an adult. I have a 4 month old son and while i certianly will hope he does not believe in God when he grows up but i hope i will accept it if he does. I will encourage him to read the Bible, the Quoran, and any other religious texts that he wants. I will also encourange him to read about the "dead" religions (or mythology as some people call it).

Just because someone (yes, even a god) is stronger than yourself why should you do what they say? If you believe you should obey God because you will go to hell if you dont or that God will smite you, then YOUR god is not a nice god in my books. Certainly one that should not be obeyed.

If the God of the Bible is actually like the God described in many parts of it (especially the old testament) frankly i can see why Satan rebelled. If i was an angel maybe i would have been on Satan's side in the revoloution. If the God of the Bible is as unjust and as wrathful as it sometimes appears then maybe Satan just got bad press. Remember... history is written by the victors.

Ok, that went on for too long but im not going to edit. Will let people hack away at my thoughts. Hope this generates some good CIVILISED discussions.

I'de like to hear your thoughts on this people, because i have found it very hard myself to question this guy's theory, anyways, i finally got 20 posts (scared)

I understand that for someone who does not hold a belief in any sort of deity, my last post would be irrelevant.  However, that post was meant more for someone who does believe in God (in any form).  I completely agree with you, Atratus, that people need to respect eachother's religious choices and their own personal leaps of faith, even if one does not agree with them.

On the topic of leaps of faith, a verse that I find really interesting is Hebrews 11:1 (New King James Version).  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."  That verse says that faith is not just wishful thinking but the very fact that we have faith is evidence there is something else out there.  We believe in God, Heaven, etc because it's there, not just because the thought of nothing scares us.  That comforts me a little...

if you truly love God and you take into account everything he's given and made...  worship just comes.  It's like when someone gives you an awesome gift for your birthday and you are all happy and say "Thank you!" and hug them and even do a little dance.  Worship is the equivalent of that offered to God, in my opinion.

With respect - because I do understand respect your belief - that's the difference between your approach to the universe and mine. I don't believe in a Creator. I take the universe at face value, no One to thank and no One to blame and I take my own comfort in that. My faith rests in the assumption that the least complicated explaination that is devoid of contradictions is the best one. I wholly recognise, unlike many other atheists, that it *is* a matter of faith, and that there are in fact two leaps of faith involved that are no different than any other leap of faith. I have faith that the least complicated explaination is always the best one - there is no way to prove that is true, and I have faith that there are no contradictions - which is also unprovable. The Trinity, for example, is a contradiction and accepting it requires a leap of faith that fundamentally is no different my maintaining that there are no contradictions. There's no arguing elements of faith because, by their nature, there are no concrete premises to back them up. All a decent person can do is accept that his neighbour's house is built on a different foundation and try and see the merits in the architecture.

Yes, being kind to man is part of loving God...  "whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me" etc, and worship may not be a pre-requisite to getting into Heaven, but like I said before...  if you truly love God and you take into account everything he's given and made...  worship just comes.  It's like when someone gives you an awesome gift for your birthday and you are all happy and say "Thank you!" and hug them and even do a little dance.  Worship is the equivalent of that offered to God, in my opinion.

The only problem with Pascal's Wager is that if God is truly omniscient then he knows your heart, knows if your devotion to him is genuine or simply "covering your bases" to avoid Hell.

Good point!

Not quite what I meant.  I just think that God would be more pleased with my doing good for the sake of good, and not to curry favour with Him.  And wasn't that bit about the neighbour accompanied by something along the lines of "how do I love God?"  "By caring for the least of my borthers."  So if I'm going about being kind to people, aren't I being kind to God, intentionally or no?

I don't believe God to be insecure (being omnipotent and all), but rather I feel that those who suggest that worship of him is required suggest that He is insecure.  To say that I will go to hell for not worshipping (though I continue to be kind and good) seems pretty petty and spiteful, also characteristics I find God unlikely to possess. 

And if God was kind enough to ask me (without the Awe and Intimidation), "Hey Swoop, why not with the worship?"  I'd be pretty likely to ask in return, "Do you really need it?"  I'm sure it would be an enlightening conversation.  As I'm not much for one sided conversations, and since God has opted to be decidedly mute in my lifetime, I guess I'll have to wait a while for it.

I don't think that it comes down to God being insecure and requiring our faith or worship or praise...  but I think part of loving God and understanding exactly how amazing he is, how beautiful and complex all he created is... is thanking him, which is what worship is.  Thanking him for life, thanking him for giving us a second chance, thanking him for everything we have...  and yes, life is not perfect all the time (refer to my post in Relationships and Sexuality : A Baby in the Mix), but just the fact that I can draw breath into my lungs is a reason to be thankful.

Yes, loving your neighbour is important, and it is, in fact (according to the New Testament), the second most important commandment.  The first, however is loving God.  It doesn't say "Love your God and praise him and blah blah blah."  It says love him.  In the same way that loving your spouse encompasses a lot of other things, so does loving God.  He created us.  He breathed the very breath into the lungs of the first man.  He molded us out of the dirt, made us special, made us in his own image.  All the rest of creation he merely spoke into existance.  He told the waters and land and skies to teem with creatures according to their own kind, he told the earth to produce vegetation each according to their own kind...  but man?  Man he made special, unique, the pinnacle of his creation.  He saved us for last, he sculpted us with his own hands.  Not only that but (from my stand-point), he sent his own son to die for us.  If that is Truth...  then why would you not WANT to fall down upon your knees and say thank you?

I think God would have to be pretty insecure to require my faith in Him.  And if I was loving my neighbour, He'd have to be pretty spiteful to damn me to hell for foregoing the worship side of things.  In fact, isn't it better that I'm doing it just to be nice, and not for some great reward that Santa will give me in the afterlife?  I just feel that anybody who tries to promise me a paradise after death is treating me like a child.

How about this one?      The whole idea of "be nice to everyone" is actually kind of selfish [color=green][pause while everyone says, "huh?"] ... 'cause if everyone does it, then they are all being nice to me.  It doesn't seem to work in practice, but it's a damn good idea.

The only problem with Pascal's Wager is that if God is truly omniscient then he knows your heart, knows if your devotion to him is genuine or simply "covering your bases" to avoid Hell.  I don't think precautionary worship is the same as whole-hearted faith and love which is, at least in my faith, what God asks.

OK, there are a lot of problems with that rant. I'll start by picking a few nits, then get on to the larger picture.

Nit #1: The Buddha is not a god. Buddha was a man who became enlightened and taught a path to enlightenment. He's more of a prophet along the lines of Moses or Mohammad. In Buddhism "God" is a wholly abstract concept that isn't in any way personified.

Nit #2: I realise this is a cut and paste of someone else's opinion, so I'm not directing this at you, Exodus - but even as an atheist I find the Jewish comments ignorant. There is no thing as kosher pork, pork is simply not kosher. Telling someone not to be jealous of his neighbours belonging is hardly irrational. And a *lot* of gentiles are curcumcised.

Nit #3: Satan, i.e. the Archangel Lucifer, did non rebel against God out of hatred, rather it was love and jealousy of mankind. Before the creation of the earth and man only the angels had God's love. Lucifer did not want to share the love of God with mankind and was cast out of heaven for it. He offered up an "all or nothing" ultimatum and got nothing.

Nit #4: There is no "u" in  Qoran / Koran.

Nit #5: Does loki_666 have something against the apostrophe? Almost every other punctuation mark seems to be in there, yet not a sligle contracton or possessive has an apostrophe. How annoying.

Now, on to the bigger question the post poses, why worship a god? I am probably just the sort of atheist the poster would wants his child to be. I've read a lot of assorted things on a wide variety of religions and folklore. What "loki_666" is proposing is actually very much in line with Buddhism and certain (unpopular and definitely not mainstream) interpretations of the Hindu vedas. Ever wonder why cows are sacred to Hindus? Because the vedas say that a cow and god should be revered the same way, more likely meaning (IMHO) that god should be taken as nothing more than an everyday part of the world, like a cow, or a brick or any other commonplace thing. Buddhism, which incidentally originates from the Indian sub-continent - the Buddha would have been raised in a Hindu culture - is very similar in outlook. God is just there in everything and is not really something to be worshipped, but something to be aware of. Nirvana is achieved by becoming wholly aware of god, and the only way to do that is to learn to completely reliquish any notion of "self" and melt into the universe as part of god.

From a purely philosophical point of view, I personally don't see a need to believe in a higher being of any sort. For example, to believe that an eternal god (note that I am using a lower case "g" - I'm not talking about any specific god or pantheon) created the universe seems to me to be an overcomplication. If a person can believe in a god that pre-exists all other creation why not simply believe in an eternal universe and leave the extraneous almighty being out of it?  Why is an eternal, infinine and unknowable being more comforting than the idea of an eternal, infinite and unknowable reality?

Probably because in my vision of the universe, the universe is utterly uncaring and that all human morality and ethics flows from purely human sources. What is good for my fellow man, for myself, and causes no harm to anyone else, to myself, or any living thing is the greatest good. Looked at carefully and followed through without intellectual compromise I find that this purely humanistic idea of good and evil matches up with religious notions of good and evil.

But if I am going to operate on reason alone, the then I'd be remiss in not mentioning Pascal's Wager to consider. Blaise Pascal, the mathematician - who by trade was an eminently rational man - proposed the idea of workshipping god in the context of a branch of mathematics that is now referred to as gaming theory. The way he proposed it, if God exists and there is the prospect of eternal life for those that worship Him then it is in one's best interest to worship. Failure to worship would mean missing out on eternal life in paradise, and depending on the particular religion, potentially an eternal damnation in Hell. On the other hand, if there is no God, then there is no eternity in paradise, no damnation and no other eternal conseqence from worshipping or not worshipping. So then if there is nothing to lose by worshipping an non-existent God, but everything to gain from worshipping a God that exists, the "safe bet" would be to worship.

Only which god do you bet on? Religion is like a game of roulette. In the end, somewhere along the line everyone - even an atheist - has to make their own leap of faith and decide where to place their spiritual chips.

How's that for a big bunch of thorny reasoning that winds up nowhere?