Why does God need to be worshiped?

by Scully 132 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Midget-Sasquatch

It's a simple mechanism. First imagine what you'd like God to be like. Then find a good analogy from the real world to illustrate it. And then "just replace" the spiritual with the real world entity. Finally, begin to feel the power of similarity, feel compelled to follow the reasoning, and act accordingly.

I can see your point about the deficiencies of analogies vs realities and the possible abuses of metaphors.
You might find Pascal Boyer's Book Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought an interesting read. He argues that most religous thinking is a natural by-product of our minds normal cognitive workings. Agents (i.e. God) are linked by our minds to a short catalogue of fundamental categories/templates we use in our day to day lives like person, other living thing, man-made object. He also highlighted how many people then typically focus on the agent's reasons for doing this or that, and that these reasons always have to do with people's interactions with the agents in question.
Even if its arbitrary, maybe analogies are the more natural way for people to think about religous things. Can we separate out one from the other? I don't know. I think that the parent is one of the best analogies one can use and a god like a loving parent is one worthy of loyalty. Isn't the parent our first experience of very tender interactions, and also the most conducive agent to our healthy development?
LittleToe

Didier:
Which passages?

I was thinking particularly of the one in Deuteronomy. Sorry, I should have been more specific (I have a sluggish mind at the moment, which I'm going to blame on the Cold )
You want direct quotations? Is "God's Word" in the Bible limited to direct quotations of the speaker "God"? (another interesting theological question btw).
It is an interesting question, isn't it. With all due candor, I hold "direct quotation" in far greater esteem than narrative (even though it's just as liable to scribal license).
Here's Exodus 4:23 in NRSV
A direction to Pharoah, rather than the people
Numbers 28:2: Command the Israelites, and say to them: My offering, the food for (MT: "my food," lit. "my bread") my offerings by fire, my pleasing odor, you shall take care to offer to me at its appointed time.
Now you have my attention!
There there's some direct quotation regarding the activities of a "covenant" people.
The whole topic of houses and food supplies is a fascinating one, albeit very primative.
Do you mind taking this into the NT and offering your opinion on the connection to the Eucharist?
Pas de foi sans mauvaise foi? (Sorry this one cannot be translated into English...).
"No faith without bad faith?"
(I know that's unlikely to hit the full meaning, but I think I catch your drift - English can be such a cumbersome language, eh?)
LittleToe

SP:
I've not met someone who claims a familial relationship with God who feels abused or abandoned.
I'm going to class now, so no need to answer me..
You're not coming back??
M-S:
Well stated
StinkyPantz

SP:I've not met someone who claims a familial relationship with God who feels abused or abandoned.

Which goes back to my original statement about preferential treatment towards some. Many did feel a kinship to God (parent), but after he didn't protect them (when he could've) and love them (or at least try to show it), they could no longer justify their love for him..
..even so, it seems to me that God still feels like he deserves love/worship from everyone or else.. at least that's my impression.
<walking out the door>
Narkissos

Ross, I am not leaving you...
I've not met someone who claims a familial relationship with God who feels abused or abandoned.
I thought you were acquainted with the guy who said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Just in case, I've got a few other quotations (especially though not exclusively from the Psalms) along the same line... and without a happy ending.
Do you mind taking this into the NT and offering your opinion on the connection to the Eucharist?
I don't think the eucharist is viewed as an offering to God anywhere in the N.T. This is later Christian theology. But Jesus' death is (as you are quite aware)...
Actually Jewish monotheism everywhere (from Qumran to Philo) is struggling hard to make sense of the old religious expressions which do not seem to suit the only, spiritual, "God". Whence the expressions like "spiritual sacrifice," "sacrifice of praise," which appear also in the NT (e.g. Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter).
"Mauvaise foi" (lit. "bad faith") has the shade of meaning of "insincerity," "disingenuousness," without being nearly so harsh. Anyway I meant it as a friendly joke, as you know...
Pole

LT,
::(POLE) Ok, I'm getting carried away, because the only action you demanded from us (using the unverifiable metaphor) was respect for your beliefs.
::Yes, you are and no, I wasn't demanding anything.
Nice to see that you didn't fail to focus on the most interesting part of my post. Perhaps "demand" is not the right word. Anyway the effect of what you said was that a couple of people felt like asking if it was them who offended you or how exactly you got offended.
Should we start with the categoric statements made in the first few posts of the thread?
Scully writes: Is God some attention starved juvenile acting out with random acts of cosmic violence against people? Does God have some kind of deep seated insecurities that make him demand that people worship him?
SP Writes: He is a human invention. Some people feel the need to worship SOMETHING.. so..
Patio writes: To me, it shows up the ridiculous position of most religions. Actually, "god" is invented to serve us, it would seem, to give comfort and aid (Dumbo's magic feather).
You call this "spitting" on God??? I can't really understand how you found these "categorical" statements personally offensive. Did any of those posters write: "Listen Little Toe, you must understand that God is like this..."? I wouldn't be offended to come across a thread in which some posters say "Agnostics and atheists are little frustrated wimps". Instead if I decided to join in the discussion it would be only to have a meaningful discussion about the reasons why they think so. Of course personal attack are a different story, but it wasn't the case on this thread was it?
Most of the posters on this thread have years of their own (sometimes painful and frustrating) experiences with the idea of God. They have their own opinion and now you said they lack "a modicum of respect" when they say that God is a human invention (SP). How are they supposed to say what they believe without offending anyone, especially when they are not addressing anyone personally? Also, how do you know you have the right to formulate your own metaphors explaining what God is like (or use the NT ones), while you "moderate" the right of other people to ask purely hypothetical questions, which contain no bad language and are not directed at anyone personally (Scully)?
(POLE):You come up with this parent-child metaphor.
::Erm, no, it's a New Testament allusion. All I'm relating is how it might feel for someone within that relationship, rather than one who is just reading about it.
Oh please. And your elaborated allusion to a metaphor is not a metaphor? Whatever the source of the metaphor, my points about how it works remain valid.
Peace to all believers,
Pole
Pole

M-S,
Even if its arbitrary, maybe analogies are the more natural way for people to think about religous things. Can we separate out one from the other? I don't know. I think that the parent is one of the best analogies one can use and a god like a loving parent is one worthy of loyalty. Isn't the parent our first experience of very tender interactions, and also the most conducive agent to our healthy development?
Yep. Most abstract thinking is metaphorical. My favourite example is the concept of time. Can you say anything about time without resorting to metaphors? I don't think so. So what's wrong with metaphors in religious thinking?
Problems begin when you confuse metaphors with the reality they are supposed to represent or describe. Look at populist politicians. They can make fiery speeches which make (naive) people take action, even though the contents of the speeches has very little to do with real evidence.
It's enough to make them metaphorically coherent. You simply do the "replacement" trick at one point and people people get this feeling of a cohesive conceptual wholeness.
----------------
Examples:
Bush accused Kerry of his supposedly flip-flop attitudes and used the following proverb/metaphor:
"You don't change horses midstream."
Kerry replied by elaborating on this metaphor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54161-2004Sep27.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004
"Kerry told the town hall that voters shouldn't be wary of changing horses midstream when the horse is drowning. Kerry also poked fun at reports that the Bush campaign insisted that the debate podiums be set relatively far apart so Kerry's five-inch height advantage won't be so apparent."
"May I also suggest that we need a taller horse?" he said. "You can get through deeper waters that way."
http://www.mid-day.com/news/world/2004/september/93491.htm
Answering doubts in the minds of undecided voters about ?changing horses in midstream?,, Kerry countered, ?When your horse is heading down toward the waterfall or when your horse is drowning, it?s a good time to change horses in midstream.?
------------------
Now, what we can see here is that these guys are only remotely referring to facts and reality and instead they are playing this metaphor game. If it had no influence on voters, if voters thought it silly and useless, Bush and Kerry would talk about facts, and reality. Unfortunately, a lot of people fail to notice how metaphors influence their interpretation of evidence, and how they influence their real-life choices.
IMHO, most religious explanations are based on the same principles as the Bush and Kerry exchange above. Focus on metaphors, so that you forget about reality.
Pole
Pole

double post
Doubtfully Yours

I can only relate it to the parent-child relationship. I guess it's in a way how parents like to be shown consideration, appreciation and some type of gratitude as often as possible.
Having said that, and considering the fact that God supposedly created humans to His image, I don't think God needs or wants humans to be worshipping him ALL the time.
DY
LittleToe

SP:
..even so, it seems to me that God still feels like he deserves love/worship from everyone or else.. at least that's my impression.

Most of the OT references were specifically to the nation of Israel, and the NT ones to the Christians. Widening the scope for a moment, does the Koran apply to those outwith the Muslim faith?
Pole:
Nice to see that you didn't fail to focus on the most interesting part of my post.
There was nothing to add. I mostly agreed with you
Oh please. And your elaborated allusion to a metaphor is not a metaphor? Whatever the source of the metaphor, my points about how it works remain valid.
I agree with the validity of most of your points. I just continued to use the metaphor in the manner in which it appears to have been originally used. What's the problem with that?
Maybe re-reading my original post in a more neutral light might help you, because I wasn't personally offended (emphasis added), and hope that you aren't:
LT wrote: Whilst the points raised may, or may not, have merit. I'm at odds to point out that the manner in which this topic is being discussed may be construed as offensive.
Whatever happened to have a modicum of respect for people's belief's (however wild you may view them)?
If it's any consolation, I come out with similar kinds of comments on non-religious threads (even when my own understanding of something is diametrically opposed to the supported posters).
Didier:To be honest, I wasn't really ignoring your points, I was cogitating on them (and still am)
As ever, they are enlightneing. Incidentally, on a side note, I'm really enjoying "Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity". Thanks for recommending it.
I thought you were acquainted with the guy who said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
But wasn't that God abandoning God?
Just in case, I've got a few other quotations (especially though not exclusively from the Psalms) along the same line... and without a happy ending.
That would appear to be the way that some interpreted it, though what was the recorded end result? I don't recall any that didn't ultimately have happy endings (as every story should go). I'd be happy to look at such accounts, though.
I don't think the eucharist is viewed as an offering to God anywhere in the N.T. This is later Christian theology. But Jesus' death is (as you are quite aware)...
And hence the Eucharist is a symbolic re-inactment of that?
Doesn't Paul take the symbology of the food sacrifices of the OT and apply them as shadows of the same? I'm just trying to establish some continuity, in respects of your comments on food sacrifices in the OT.
Actually Jewish monotheism everywhere (from Qumran to Philo) is struggling hard to make sense of the old religious expressions which do not seem to suit the only, spiritual, "God". Whence the expressions like "spiritual sacrifice," "sacrifice of praise," which appear also in the NT (e.g. Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter).
Do you mean specifically in respects of the food sacrifices, or the evident polytheistic backdrop, as well?
"Mauvaise foi" (lit. "bad faith") has the shade of meaning of "insincerity," "disingenuousness," without being nearly so harsh. Anyway I meant it as a friendly joke, as you know...
And it was taken as intended
I come across similar encultured shades of meaning in Gaelic, that are lost in translation to English.
English also has some of it's own, when considering the light and friendly insults that are exchanged

Why does God need to be worshiped?

Share this