why do people worship god?

[anu]

Assuming god does exist, what did 'he' do, is currently doing and will do for the benefit of the people, which deserve worship? Or could it be fear that they will be punished and go to hell if they do not worship 'him'? That's similar to what dictators do to people who disobey them.

I asked this simple question to some members of Jehovah's Witnesses who came to our house and they gave this answer - they do not need a reason to worship god. Simple answer but I find it hard to understand it. For me, my every action has a reason.

[anu]

My impression is you are very good person. I am a good person too . Not one person can tell that I did harm to them. Before I got married in Catholic church, a confession is required. I told the priest I could not think of any sin I committed. The priest said, 'so, you're a holy man.' I just smiled.

But this is't relvant tot he topijc, and neither of us knows eahc other well enough for htis to rlaly matter.

I take it back. I am wrong, you're not a good person like me . And you're right. It's becoming monotonous. Good-bye then.

[McCulloch]

God refers to himself as he.

No, religious texts which some claim to be from God refer to God as he.

What else do we refer to God as? Referring to God as it, as Ive seen before and as you do later in this post, simply serves to depersonalize God

Yes, it is a problem. English does not have a gender neutral personal pronoun. Many theists have come to the rather logical conclusion that God cannot be conceptually compartmentalized as either specific gender, since God is spirit. Yet God is not believed to be inanimate, so it is also unsuitable. Personally, I prefer the feminine. It just makes sense. The physiological difference between male and female center around the female ability to take a greater role in procreation and nurturing the young, and isn't that what God is supposed to be?

God is the source of life, created everything, and sustains it now. He also guides us, is the source of all love, liberty, and wisdom, and brings us our very nature.

That is your opinion.

He's protected me when I needed it. And he protects others. Even Nations.

Sometimes. Other times he does not.

Another old Canard. The "Atheists don't kill people but religious folks do" claim is destroyed by simply looking at the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other places where atheists have killed for their religion.

Atheism is a lack of religion. The killing in the USSR and China and other totalitarian regimes was done in the name of inflexible intolerant ideology. They have proven that established intolerant atheism can be as bad as intolerant established theism.

[ZAROVE]

ANU-

I'm not beign cruel, but as soon as you crossed a certian point, I'm afraid I had to put down the line.

You cant misspell god, refer to god as an it, ansd hten say that you hav seen no good god has done, only tot hen invoke the Bible and say it records him as a mass murderer, and expect their to be no rebuttle as what I presented.

If you are offended, this is preccley how I feel when you come along with those sorts of comments.

Mac (Sorry, Im not sure hwo to spell your name.)




No, religious texts which some claim to be from God refer to God as he.


So, now I am restricted to playing on your fieild? I am of those wo make those claims, recall.




ZAROVE wrote:
What else do we refer to God as? Referring to God as it, as Ive seen before and as you do later in this post, simply serves to depersonalize God


Yes, it is a problem. English does not have a gender neutral personal pronoun. Many theists have come to the rather logical conclusion that God cannot be conceptually compartmentalized as either specific gender, since God is spirit.

Yet Jesus personified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

Besides, I find no actual ancient prcedent for the nonuse of the masculine Gender.



Yet God is not believed to be inanimate, so it is also unsuitable.

Thank you for seeing this main problem.



Personally, I prefer the feminine. It just makes sense. The physiological difference between male and female center around the female ability to take a greater role in procreation and nurturing the young, and isn't that what God is supposed to be?

I suspect you prefer the Feminine due to outside cultural implications, which tends to favour women and elevate them, and not for the sttement above.


Men can eaisly be providers, pr even nurturers and caretakers.

Whats more, those who tend to use the feminien to rfer to God, as she, do so with this as a ttement, but if you read thei theology, they also propose a good many other things that have no historical precedent.


The reaosn for refeign to God a she seems ot be to fulfill both a feminist (In the true sence) agenda that ou culture has of elevatign women, and to soft peddle new concepts abotu God under the banner of Goddess.


Yet their is no actual precedent. God certianly never addresses himself as she. ( Sttements abotu claism only aside.)


And, I find it appaulignly sexist to eb thoguth of as an insnsative hunter-gatherer who cannot nurture anyone just because I am a man.


ZAROVE wrote:
God is the source of life, created everything, and sustains it now. He also guides us, is the source of all love, liberty, and wisdom, and brings us our very nature.


That is your opinion.

No, that is a fact.

And rmember, we are discusisng why peopel worship God. THis is why.




ZAROVE wrote:
He's protected me when I needed it. And he protects others. Even Nations.


Sometimes. Other times he does not.


His protection is with us at all times, but we sometimes choose to distance outselves form him.


Israel was protected from her enemies, until she herself left God.


The same is tue of us.



ZAROVE wrote:
Another old Canard. The "Atheists don't kill people but religious folks do" claim is destroyed by simply looking at the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other places where atheists have killed for their religion.


Atheism is a lack of religion.

No, its not. Atheism is a lack of beelif in God.

Many buddhists are Atheits, and yet Buddhism is a religion. The same can be said of soem other Eastern relgiiosn such as Confusianism, which doens't preclude God's existance, but many of whos practicioners are themslves Atheits.

Secular Humanism, dispite tis modern claim of not beign a rleigion, was foundd as a relgiion and when the Humanist Manifesto and other foundign documents where drawn up spacificlaly stated this, but it is spacificlaly an Ahtitsic religion.


Atheism is a compound, from A, menaing no, and THeism, menaign God. Not No religion, no God.

And religion doens't mean "Beleif in God", but To connect again, and is the mechanism we use to connect, or reconnect, to our world and interrelate to it.


Atheism in and of itsself is not a rleigion, but then theism isn't a religion either.They are Positions. But both are integral to several beelif systems.


The killing in the USSR and China and other totalitarian regimes was done in the name of inflexible intolerant ideology. They have proven that established intolerant atheism can be as bad as intolerant established theism.


Thats sort of my point though. The argument that religion always breeds totolitarianism and intolerance is itsself false.

For soem reason, even though it has been shown in hisotry that Secular states can be totolitarian, many Ahtitss assume Secular states aren't. At the same time, they assume that a State that is deeply rleigious must be totolitarian by nature. hey equate Libarty with seuclarism, and totolitarianism with rleigion.


This is a massive fla since Secularism is no sheild agaisnt Totolitarianism, and rleigion is not relaly a promoter of Totolitarianism innately.


One can have a Rich, beutiful culture that has estalished a religion that still has freedom. Just as oen can have an Ahtiestically based ociety hats a livign Hell on Earth.


The argument agasint Relgiion is that it breeds totolitarianism, butthis simply is not true.

[McCulloch]

Mac (Sorry, Im not sure hwo to spell your name.)

Mac is fine. McCulloch is not from English and can be difficult.

Religious texts which some claim to be from God refer to God as he.

So, now I am restricted to playing on your field? I am of those who make those claims, recall.

No, I am not restricting you to my field. I am getting to common ground of objective facts that we can both agree on for debate. We both agree that religious texts refer to God as masculine. It has not been proven, therefore it is not to be taken as fact, that God refers to himself at all. Unless, I suppose the character of God as depicted in the Bible, who certainly does refer to himself as masculine.

Besides, I find no actual ancient precedent for the nonuse of the masculine Gender.

And I find no evidence that the ancients had any more direct contact with God than modern humans.

Men can easily be providers, or even nurturers and caretakers.

Yes, but in looking at those characteristics which differentiate male from female, God, it would seem to me, is more female than male. It is conceivable that the human species could continue without men. A little reproductive technology to replace the male gamete and we're redundant. Humanity without the females, is not so easy to think about.

Atheism in and of itself is not a religion, but then theism isn't a religion either. They are positions. But both are integral to several belief systems.

We agree. Neither atheism nor theism are religions. Theism, however, is a necessary central defining belief to all theistic religions.

The argument that religion always breeds totalitarianism and intolerance is itself false.

We agree again. Just as the argument that atheism always breeds totalitarianism and intolerance is false. There are nasty intolerant theists and atheists. And there are kind tolerant theists and atheists.

For some reason, even though it has been shown in history that Secular states can be totalitarian, many atheists assume Secular states aren't.

Those who make such claims would clearly be wrong.

At the same time, they assume that a State that is deeply religious must be totalitarian by nature. They equate liberty with secularism, and totalitarianism with religion.

Secularism is not the same as atheism. I would like to debate this point in the Politics and Religion thread, but I believe that ultimately liberty must lead to secularism.

[ZAROVE]

ZAROVE wrote:
Besides, I find no actual ancient precedent for the nonuse of the masculine Gender.


And I find no evidence that the ancients had any more direct contact with God than modern humans.


But nevertheless, they did speak of God, and did not use the feminine quoteint.

Wiccan claism aside.



ZAROVE wrote:
Men can easily be providers, or even nurturers and caretakers.


Yes, but in looking at those characteristics which differentiate male from female, God, it would seem to me, is more female than male.


As I said, I beleive this is more because of modern infleunce on youtr thinking, an dnot universal psycology, and applicaiton fo reason.


Too many modern writers in the wake of Feminism repeatthis same claim, and it appears to me that God is made female in the midns of people, or thoguth ogf as mroe rationally invisioend as female, simp;y to meet this new cultural need to feminise God. Not for any actual logical reason.


Gods atributes aren't relaly mroe feminine than masculine.




It is conceivable that the human species could continue without men. A little reproductive technology to replace the male gamete and we're redundant. Humanity without the females, is not so easy to think about.

So, your comparing cynthetic reproduction via technology, to God?


You also must realise that God is a creator, not a literal parent. He didn't give birth to the Universe or us.

That hampers this connecton.

I again repeat, I think the reason God is more logicllay thoguth of as ffemale has nothign to do wiht actula logic, or arhctypes. I think God is mroe logicllay a she in th eminds of oflks liek you ( I mean no offence, I mean this seriously) because of the feminisation of our culture and the collective weight of feminist argumentation that has had its sway in such debates for years noew.The subconcious associaiton with creative power and femininity did not exist in the ancient world, nor is it the product of sicnetific understanding, but rather the elevation of women that we have seen in the last 70 or so years.


Still, Godz creative powerr is not relaly all that feminine. Its not even all that masculine. It smore akin to an author writting a book, thinkign into existance a world. That is applicable to both male and female.


Nevertheless, God is addressed as He by all precedent of History, and htis is what shoudl remain right and proper.







ZAROVE wrote:
Atheism in and of itself is not a religion, but then theism isn't a religion either. They are positions. But both are integral to several belief systems.


We agree. Neither atheism nor theism are religions. Theism, however, is a necessary central defining belief to all theistic religions.


And Atheism is an inegral part of all Atheistic religions.


ZAROVE wrote:
The argument that religion always breeds totalitarianism and intolerance is itself false.


We agree again. Just as the argument that atheism always breeds totalitarianism and intolerance is false. There are nasty intolerant theists and atheists. And there are kind tolerant theists and atheists.


Correct. Thats why the whole argument of the need for complete and utter removal of all rleigion from oublic life is absurd. Its not like an Opely devout Hindu will automaticlaly use his position of authority to impose Hindu beleifs upon the rest of the populace, just as an Openly devout Jew wouldnt do that simply because he is a Jew.

The same applies for Chrstianity, which is most debaed agaisnt.

And of couse, for the Xhristyians who use the same flawed argument, an Atheist leader woudl not nessisarily be a brutal dictator.






ZAROVE wrote:
At the same time, they assume that a State that is deeply religious must be totalitarian by nature. They equate liberty with secularism, and totalitarianism with religion.


Secularism is not the same as atheism. I would like to debate this point in the Politics and Religion thread, but I believe that ultimately liberty must lead to secularism.


I disagree. Then again I come from a country that has a State Church.


One can retain a rich heritage and have a highly rleigios culutre that is still nonetheless free, provided other religions are allowed to be practiced andno oen is hampered.

A State Churhc in fact helps with unity.It gives a default spirituality for those who want it, ANd if strictly voluntery is no harm to those who don't, gives a senior moral voice tot he nation and a focus of unity in times of need.It also provides a useful ceremonial role to the state, such as coronation fo a Monarch, or presiding pver memorials. WHich can be shared with other clergy, even secular ones.


A State Churhc can give aid tot he concerns of those in need, while giving the govenrment a conceince.


These ideas are of ocurse forign to an American and not relaly ommon in Canada, but even many Atheists in England support the Churhc of England, because of both its ceremonial services and its services to the poor and needy, and its ability to lend a comforting voice in times of crisis.

A compeltley secular state can also be argued to be less at libarty. Look at hte American Churhc VS State issues of today.WEven though yu agree thst the Ten Commandments monuments shoudlnt be in courtrooms as thye make others fele xcluded, I can speak from personal expeirnce that they don't. And in the UK no ones relaly objected except he militant athiests who raly want an expurgenc of all religion everywhere.( Greyling and Dawkisn even think thta we shoudl ban teachign religion to children till their 16 and say its child abuse. This is of ocurse an extremist position I don't expect you to hold.)

DIspirte haivng Religius education, religious assembelis, and a State Churhc, Brittian is a fre nation.

And oen can reaidly invision a state of libertarian values still retianing a State Churhc and hallowing for religiosu sentement within the public sphere.


Just as a Secular state would not nessiarilybe free, one wiht rleigiosu componants wouldn't nessisarily be restirctive.

[bernee51]

ZAROVE wrote:
Besides, I find no actual ancient precedent for the nonuse of the masculine Gender.


And I find no evidence that the ancients had any more direct contact with God than modern humans.


But nevertheless, they did speak of God, and did not use the feminine quoteint.

Wiccan claism aside.

They spoke of gods and goddesses. Female deities originated in horticultural (as opposed to agricultural) societies.

Female deities are common in many ancient traditions cf hinduism.

ZAROVE wrote:
Men can easily be providers, or even nurturers and caretakers.


Yes, but in looking at those characteristics which differentiate male from female, God, it would seem to me, is more female than male.


As I said, I beleive this is more because of modern influence on your thinking, an dnot universal psycology, and applicaiton fo reason.

The singularly male deity is a result of the move toward monotheism

Too many modern writers in the wake of Feminism repeatthis same claim, and it appears to me that God is made female in the midns of people, or thoguth ogf as mroe rationally invisioend as female, simp;y to meet this new cultural need to feminise God. Not for any actual logical reason.

This is more of a regression than a movement forward. A move towards the pre-rational rather than the post-rational

The subconcious associaiton with creative power and femininity did not exist in the ancient world, ...]
You cannot back this claim up with facts.

Have you looked at the duality, the male/female in Hindu culture - a culture and belief system that predates the monotheism by millennia.

Have you never heard of Astarte?

nor is it the product of sicnetific understanding, but rather the elevation of women that we have seen in the last 70 or so years.

This is clearly an incorrect opinion.

Nevertheless, God is addressed as He by all precedent of History, and htis is what shoudl remain right and proper.

Wrong again.

And Atheism is an inegral part of all Atheistic religions.

Please provide an example of an 'atheistic religion'.