Why worship God?

I was raised in a christian home, but I didn't get it for a long time. I questioned; I rebelled; I searched; I experimented; I sought out; I wandered and wondered far and wide. not until a series of experiences in my own life brought me to my knees (literally).

 

That is at least an honest approach. But it begs the question why god reveals himself to you, but not to me and most everybody else (he could instantly abolish all religious infighting and lead everybody to the correct religion). And it also begs the question why so many sincere believers have experienced conflicting revelations.

There are 30000 Christian denominations in the US alone, not to mention all the other religions and beliefs world wide. Is every muslim who experienced Allah lying? Or are they misinterpreting the revelation? Then why didn't god make himself more clear? Couldn't he have done that? And if they can err, how can you be sure that you got it right?
Also, isn't it strange that Americans usually have revelations confirming their Christian Protestant beliefs, Spaniards have revelations confirming their Catholic beliefs and Iranians have revelations confirming their Muslim beliefs...or could it possibly be a psychological phenomenon that correlates with the local religion?

 

Well keep on prayin on brotha.

 

People need faith, let the not radical have it.

But the GOP CONSERVATIVES!! AND THEIR GOONS! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS I SAY

 

I suppose God could have made us without free will also, and we would have no choice but to worship him, if that's what he wanted. I don't know if I would call my personal experiences "revelations" in the sense that it was some dream or vision in which some great mystery was revealed to me. in my situation, it was more of a coming to a realization, an understanding, and a recognition. i think because each of us are different, our spiritual experiences that cause us to believe are necessarily different as well. for some, it's more fact, history, science, etc. based. for me, those things would never have convinced me in a million years. I needed to experience God personally, and not be convinced in my intellect. but for others, that's exactly what's needed. they need facts and evidence.

why God chooses to not reveal himself in a public way once and for all to everybody? I don't know. if you believe in the OT, he has already done that on several occasions to entire groups (nation of Israel), as well as to individuals. God also revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ (if you believe it), and still many chose not to believe, because it wasn't what they expected. but if God chose to reveal himself to everybody in a powerful and in a public way, then what would we do? what would be our mission? Jesus invited his disciples in God's mission - to make disciples. why? because God can't do it himself? ask yourself why you want your child to do certain things. wouldn't it be easier for you to just do it yourself and be done with it? your child may not understand why, but you know you're doing it for that child's ultimate benefit - to help that child grow up into a responsible, mature adult. maybe that's God's plan for each of us too.

 

A lot depends upon what is meant when the word "god" is used. If we are discussing the being whose name is Jehovah ( and all of the other names ascribed to Him ), then worship is the result of the recognition of who He is. Jehovah is worth worship. He is The Lord God Almighty. There is nothing which can be named that is of greater magnitude.

That's what the scriptures of the Hebrews and of followers of Jesus say of Him. That isn't really debatable, as long as we're talking about that god.

That god isn't about religion. If you look at he beginning of his relationships with Man, the basic format is one where God reaches out to Adam, to Abraham, to Noah, to Moses, and then through Jesus, to all of us, and He says "Trust me and obey me, and I will bless you." The 'obey' part is completely reasonable expectation, based on who that god is.

Calling the relationship between that god and man a religion totally misrepresents His intentions.

 

Honestly, if you genuinely believe in God (like the Jewish/Christian/Muslim type of God), then you're going to want to worship Him. It's like Stilton said - this entity is perfect and infinitely good. Why would you not worship it? If you think such an entity exists you should be completely in awe of it.

But as to the question of why would God want to be worshiped, that's something else entirely.

 

Why worship God?

On a clear moonless night I find it good to walk outside and to look up at the stars, and when away from city lights to even look at the Milky Way to try and contemplate the vastness of what is out there. I don't know the nature of God, but if we define God to be whatever it is that created this Universe -in all it vastness, and our small place in it- then it is impossible not to stand in awe.

Some will say that God doesn't care about us. Well perhaps, it is impossible to know one way or the other, but God cares enough to make room for us in his Universe, and to allow us to spend a brief time in it. To allow us to have consciousness, to think and to feel and to try in some limited way to comprehend his universe. Shouldn't that be enough?

 

Again, I like your honest approach. But no matter how you call it: realization, revelation, etc. it leads to the same problems.

The point is that any god worth his salt should be able to not make this a matter of belief. Simply believing the writings of an ancient book is a terrible way to derive truth, that's intuitively obvious to everyone and it should be obvious to a god.
That doesn't mean that he'd have to take free will away. Knowing the truth is not the same as lacking free will.

The same as it is now. Why should it change anything? If god created the world for a purpose, then that purpose would remain, whether people knew about it or not.

Though you'd think that god would be more likely to achieve that purpose if we knew about it...unless of course part of that purpose is to keep us in the dark or even worse, maybe that purpose has nothing to do with us or our well being. Both alternatives don't sound very loving though.

Very good question. If god was real, why does he need prophets, apostles, disciples, etc? Wouldn't their very existence and their exclusive relationship to god indicate that god isn't real to begin with? Isn't their existence much easier explained by human psychology than by an omnipotent, all loving and all knowing god?

I never thought that the child analogy was very convincing as a reply to the problem of evil (which is to an extend what we're talking about). It's one thing to want them to make their own experiences in order to learn larger connections and patterns, making them more fit for their own life. It's quite another to let them suffer and die. No loving parent would let his children's kill each other over differing interpretations, especially when he could easily clear up the misunderstanding, no parent would actively torture his children for eternity if they didn't come to the right conclusion on their own, etc.

God could in an instant get rid of all religions (which basically only exist in order to interpret god's silence) and replace them with the one and only truth and he'd end all religious conflict and all evil acts that are committed in god's name.
And at least he'd give his "children" a better chance of avoiding eternal punishment by actually offering them the truth instead of the myriad of interpretations of his silence that we have right now and which any reasonable person would reject.

 

As I said in my very long post, I think worship came first and the idea of the all loving god is just a later rationalization for that worship after the previous functions of worship have all seized to matter eventually.

I don't think the ancient Jews believed god to be infinitely good or perfect, the Bible itself is testament to that. A perfect god wouldn't haggle with Abraham over Sodom and Gomorrah. A perfect god wouldn't be surprised to see Adam and Eve hiding their genitalia, a perfect god wouldn't need to reboot his creation several times (Eden/Fall, Flood, 10 Commandments/covenant, Jesus).

Similarly, an all loving god would't kill every living being on planet earth, save a family and two of each animal-kind, and thereby taking away the chance of every unborn child to prove itself worthy.
An all loving god wouldn't command genocide and he wouldn't come up with inhumane laws.

And we could go on and on.

 

your obvious conceits shine thru like the sun. you simply have to define and critique God based on your ideas of what God SHOULD be like. who are we to say?

you don't believe the Genesis account? it tells the story quite well, actually. eat the fruit, be able to know good and evil.

you claim to know good and evil. why else would you claim to know whether God is perfect?

 

It's easy. Words have meaning. When you call god "good" then with that claim comes a definition. We therefore can objectively measure god's goodness according to the actions that are attributed to him against the definition of the word "good". And he doesn't do too well. No matter how lenient you are, killing almost every human being is hardly compatible with the word good. That is true by definition, independent of who you are.

Which is another case against the perfection of god. Adam and Eve were punished for doing evil (disobeying the lord) but they couldn't tell good from evil until after they did it. How does that make any sense?

Actually, yeah, that's what I claim, at least to a degree, otherwise these words wouldn't have any meaning anyway. Are you saying that you can't tell good from evil? Are you aware of the consequences, especially to your faith?

 

you cannot analyze what you don't understand.
your analysis is good, but it's purely from a human perspective, with human understanding.
if you believe in God (or else why would you even analyze him), then you also have to believe that he is far above and beyond human understanding, and therefore not subject to human analysis. it is like your child (maybe a 2 or 3 year old) giving you the business (from his perspective) because you haven't explained your actions to him in a way he can understand. and you can't explain to him that your brain is much more vast that his brain, that you know of concepts that he doesn't have the faintest idea about yet, and it's impossible for him to understand - now. maybe some day, he will understand. now multiply that a million times or so, and you will have God's relationship to us. so why do you think you're in a position to analyze God from your perspective, and call him good or evil based on your understanding of those terms, when you (and I, and everyone else), haven't the faintest idea of what is really going on behind the scenes (struggle between good and evil at the interstellar level)?

 

you cannot objectively measure goodness. it's a concept that we can say we have measures for, but there is no established absolute, unless you say that God is good, and then whatever He does is good.

they were told what not to do. they did what they were told not to do. they were told the consequences beforehand. the consequences forecast were imposed.

why don't you get this stuff?

 

That's plenty enough IMO. When I look at a beautiful flower or a peacock's feather, I am in awe of evolution. However, I won't go beyond that. Taking the next step like trying to put a face or person behind evolution to represent evolution so that I have another friend to talk to in my head or out loud and wonder what s/he is thinking of me (as if I'm that important) is plain craziness.

But that's just me and my two cents.

 

The analogy of us being like 2\3 year old's in the grand scheme of things is quite apt really. Though I'm thinking more along the lines on their elders writing a book about a wondrous being with a white beard, who offers rewards for following his rules. They have faith in that jolly old man as well....and why not, they read it in a story book that teaches them to be good.

 

As I said, words have meanings. The word 'good' has a meaning and I can objectively measure any deed by looking whether or not it fit's within the scope of the meaning of the word 'good'.
Now the meanings themselves are not always clear, so there is a blurry line at the edges, which is why there are things like moral dilemmas. But most things can be objectively put into either the 'good' or the 'evil' category, because they're well beyond any blurry line. If you want these words to mean anything at all, then mass genocide is clearly in the 'evil' category.

An analogy would be health. There is no absolute understanding of health. I can't absolutely say what is and what isn't healthy. There is a blurry line: Is chocolate unhealthy? In large quantities yes, but how much of it is ok? I don't know, it's a blurry line, I can't absolutely say at what point chocolate becomes unhealthy. But I can objectively say that drinking a gallon of crude oil is unhealthy, because this is so far beyond any blurry line that there's simply no question about it.

First of all, they got conflicting stories. How could they know whom to trust, god or the serpent without knowing good or evil? How could they know that disobeying god would not actually be a good thing?

Secondly, If you read Genesis, then the serpent was actually telling the truth while god was lying. Here's what god said:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And here's the serpent:
"Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Did they die the day they ate from the tree? Obviously not.
Were their eyes opened and they knew goof and evil? Apparently yes.

 

well, in relation to what we are talking about here, that is what we are like - 2-3 year olds, discussing why we should worship Santa Clause. and one group of 2 year olds is asking why the other group of 2 year olds worships Santa. well, it all starts with whether you believe in Santa. and if you don't then the question isn't even relevant. there is no point in even asking. if you do believe in Santa, then you can start having this discussion. and then my answer is, if you begin to understand who Santa is, you can't help but worship him. not because he wants it or demands it. but because you want to.

 

Sort of like the hero-worship directed at Joe Paterno.

 

benztown, if you believe in God, then surely you must recognize the silliness of a human being analyzing and judging God's goodness/badness. it is absurd.
if you don't believe in God, then why are you even having a discussion about this? you're discussing the goodness/badness of a being that you don't believe in. that discussion is equally silly and absurd.

 

Well, you haven't been, at least towards me. But that also goes for the believers who believe that you're demented or something is wrong with you for not accepting the "Truth".

By far, most of the atheists that I personally know are just normal folks who choose not to believe in God (or any god) for that matter. And the ones that personally know me know I am someone that does choose to believe in God. We're all adults, we know that boundary and we certainly know there's a bigger boundary that we don't try to convince each other's kids of our own beliefs over that of their parents.

Only a very few (belligerent and loud and persistent) atheists that I've known personally fall into that evangelical category that can't respect a known "agree to disagree" boundary. More often than than not, the ones who can't leave it alone are in the faceless places of the internet, yourself and others like BRF, notably and happily excluded.

Of course you now only have to put up with the candyasses like USAsoccer around here plus my brethren in real life that can't leave it alone and respect the privacy of the decision you've made. For that and them, I apologize.

 

The thing is that the human perspective is the only one we can possibly have. So we have two choices:

1) We can try to make the best of it and make sense of the world as good as we can given our own limitations.
2) We can throw our hands in the air and give up.

All our progress as a species comes from making choice #1. Given that this approach seems to work (otherwise we wouldn't sit in warm homes, writing stuff on a computer for all the world to see in some obscure online forum), we have good reason to assume that we can in fact know stuff about the world we live in, that we can make judgement calls.
If however you decide to throw your hands in the air, then you cannot base your beliefs on anything. If something is outside of your understanding, you can't make any claim whatsoever. Everything would be possible. While your beliefs could be true, chances are they're false, because for every belief you hold, there's an infinity of possible conflicting beliefs you don't hold, each equally valid.

That's why I decided to base my beliefs on human reasoning. It might be incomplete, but it's proven to work and it's the only anchor in reality we can possibly have.

As I previously said, I don't think this analogy works, because even if you're right, the reality we experience contradicts that view. First of all, we don't have any personal contact. We're more like an abandoned child who never met his parents. Instead of personal tutelage, daddy gave us a book...well several actually and we're supposed to pick the correct one, without having the brain to possibly understand the underlying reasons for why we should follow his command...that in itself is simply impossible. On top of that, these books are all so unclear that there are thousands of differing interpretations for each of them. Again, how are we supposed to find the right one given that we can't understand?

So even if we're like children, we'd still expect at the very least a clear and coherent message that is understood by everybody, not myriads of different religions and denominations. If god is like a parent who simply tells us what to do and not why, then he'd still be terrible at it, because he can't get his message through to everyone.

EDIT: After re-reading, I realized that it's even worse than in my analogy. A better analogy than books would be that we have several crayon pictures by other 2/3 year olds, each claiming that daddy told them what to draw...

Because that's part of my nature. I can analyze Shakespeare, mitosis, electromagnetic waves, psychology, etc...why not god?

That doesn't men I can find some absolute truth...but I can approach that truth and if god existed and if he wanted to tell me something, then he'd know about my perspective and take it into account...but that's not what we see.

Either god would have created us capable to understand the larger context, or he'd have given us a clear and unmistakable message that we can make sense of. Neither has happened.

EDIT: After reading Norsk Troll's post, I realized that I may have used confusing language myself. In the context of this thread, I'm of course talking about the concept of god, not about some real being. But if believers were correct, then that concept would closely correlate with a real being.

Firstly, I'll make my point again that good and evil have certain meanings. These words are human concepts, made to deal with human issues. We use them to facilitate communication: When I say 'good' or 'evil', you know what I mean. According to that meaning, god is clearly evil.
What you're essentially asking is why we should judge god by these human standards. That's a different question. But don't forget that it's Christians who call him good. That means that they're the ones judging him by human standards. I'm simply replying to them by saying that when the words we use are supposed to have any meaning at all, you can't possibly call god good, but you have to call him evil.
So if you say that human terms are not fit to describe god, then fine, I can accept that, just don't call him good then.

Secondly, and this may be due to my limitations, but I can't possibly imagine any context in which the extermination of almost the entire human race would be a good thing and not an evil thing. Especially not when you're all powerful like god is.
And even if killing off almost everybody was the best option he could possibly come up with, then he still can't expect me to love or worship him, especially since he knows my limited perspective. He'd know that to human eyes, his actions would appear to be evil.

 

From a historical perspective you're absolutely right. Worship of gods, and the very idea of gods, grew out of a desire to explain and hopefully control mysterious natural phenomena. The Israelites kind of took this idea to the next level with the concept of moral law; they decided that God wanted more than sacrifice and worship. He also had a code of behavior that would govern the way people interact. The Christians took it to yet another level by taking the emphasis off worldly reward, and introducing the idea of eternal reward. A necessary innovation, I would think, given the obvious lack of correlation between worship & good behavior, and outcomes. It became necessary to put the emphasis on less tangible rewards. At the same time, the emphasis was placed back on worship, instead of behavior alone -- only through worship of Christ could redemption be achieved. This idea really took off after Protestantism came into the picture, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries. That's when the concept of a personal relationship with God/Jesus, and redemption through belief specifically (as opposed to worship, which can be an action and does not necessarily reflect a specific internal state) took hold.

While that historical perspective is interesting, it doesn't really answer the question of why religious people worship their gods today. The ancient Israelites may not have had the concept of an infinitely good diety, but contemporary Jews do. Jews and Christians (and I assume Muslims, although I know a lot less about their religion) have spent centuries discussing and debating and analyzing those parts of their holy books which appear to contradict God's goodness and perfection. I recognize that this is retroactively reinterpreting something that wasn't necessarily intended to convey that idea. But the point is that I think most religious people do see God that way today. And as I said, if you sincerely believe in a being that is perfect, infinitely good and infinitely powerful, then you're going to want to worship it.

Now, as to the question of perfect goodness, and whether the God of the Bible has demonstrated it, I think that's not even worth discussing. Perfect goodness is an oxymoron. It's a nonsensical concept. Look at Stilton's statement: "God is good, and then whatever He does is good." It's the most circular kind of reasoning imaginable. God's goodness is taken as a given and an absolute. If God does something that appears to our understanding not to be good, then it's our understanding of what's good that's at fault, not God. Because if God did it, then by definition it's good.