Than as far as I can tell, your objection has about as much weight as a six year old yelling “NUH-UH!”
For what it’s worth, you’re welcome to correct this at any time.
No, I’d say you’re spot on.
To be honest, this is how I always felt the God in the Bible (or at least the Old Testament), if he existed, would be.
Now I’m using the piss-poor english translation here, so feel free to say “oh yeah, by the way that was translated oddly…” but frankly in the Ten Commandments, the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Somewhat implies there are other gods, not to mention he’s specifically saying “don’t listen to them above myself.” If he were an all-powerful being… would it really matter? All it would take is one or two off-the-wall shows of power to convince the heathens. Not to mention the “before me” part sticks out to mean “you CAN indeed worship these people, just me first… mmkay?” Which to me sounds like a competition between the gods as to who has the most people holding them as their patron god… something the Great Creator™ shouldn’t need to worry about. (Also, am I wrong with the fact that the Canaanite tribes around this time were polytheistic? I vaguely recall something about the worship several types of gods (especially fertility or agriculture gods like Baal), with the Judaic one being the patron, or close to it most of the time.)
Raindog, the point of a dispassionate analysis is to see if it is logical to apply worship to such a being from the context of a certain faith.
Christians of all flavors generally agree on the following.
Man is born inherently sinful thanks to the concept of original sin. Pre-Jesus, the Jews had to keep to a complicated set of rules, conduct, and animal sacrifices to placate their deity. Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah predicted in the old testament, and that through his sacrifice any person who chooses to become a Christian may be saved from damnation after death. Most also believe that Jesus will return at some point, during which the faithful will be resurrected and rewarded with a physical, deathless paradise.
Keeping that in mind, the god specified in the OP doesn’t make the grade logically. Since Christians believe that God is all-benfecient, then the OP’s god doesn’t qualify. Allowing the existence of evil through impotence would reveal god to be less than all-powerful. This would require a significant restructuring of fundamental theological doctrine to accommodate the new view of god and it’s role in regards to humans.
It depends whether it is everlasting evil and whether all sentient beings can achieve immortality and happiness.
If not, then the act of creation was not pure and thus, the creator not perfect and unworthy of worship or the name God.
That said, I could be friendly or loving towards such a creator and infinitely humble and respectful. Sucks to suffer and die but is the world not beautiful and fascinating for part of all our lives, no matter how briefly?
For that, I’ll willingly sacrifice the remainder of my life to such a creator.
Is a puissant but limited God worth shipping?
Perhaps by Guaranteed Overnight Delivery?
Gospel according to John, where Satan asks Jesus to bow down before him.
I’m not a dog that would lick its master’s hand for a pat and a biscuit. That’s why.
…however, if I had to lick a [del]master[/del] Mistress…
Not wrong - at least as current scholarship would have it - one example .
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’m not a dog that would lick its master’s hand for a pat and a biscuit. That’s why.
So do you extend this attitude to relationships with other human beings? Does being nice and polite to other people in the expectation that they will reciprocate strike you as doglike behavior? Do you refuse on principle to perform any labor in exchange for payment? Since I’m assuming the answer to both the above questions is negative, why do you apply different standards to your relationship with a hypothetical deity?
Has the definition of “worship” been watered down this much? If so, I’m off to worship my supervisor by submitting Holy Form 7714A before the altar on which sits the Ark Of The Fax Machine.
Hail the DemiUrge!
You’re not Perfect, but you’re Good Enough for us!
No - but my relationship with my dog is not an equal one. He is quite clearly subservient to me.
Not any labour - but I won’t whore out my affections, which is the kind of labour you’re suggesting.
My fellow humans are my equals - none of them is master over me. I would not call my relationships with any of them “worship” in the sense meant in the OP. To do so would twist the word of any sense.
The closest to “worship” I come are my wife and Billie Piper.
Gnostic humour - it gnever gets old!
You’re not perfect, that’s good enough for me
Godhead godhead godhead starts with GGGGGGGGGGGGG!
MrDibble, I believe the author of the OP has already acknowledged that his failure to adequately define “worship” was problematic, and I am continuing to work from the expansive definition I proposed in post #11. I must confess that I am finding it hard to understand your attitude. For the purposes of this thread, we are taking God’s existence for granted, though obviously it has not, and, in my opinion, cannot, be proved. I am just not clear on why the hypothetical existence of a being who is, by definition, far superior to you in power and wisdom would enrage you so much that you would act to your own disadvantage by refusing to engage in the same sort of relationship based on reciprocal obligations with said being that you routinely engage in with other humans (and, indeed, with your dog – if you started beating and stopped feeding him, I imagine his attitude toward you would change!).
I don’t think “communicate with deity” adequately covers the meaning of the word “worship”. Some sort of reverence is also implicit - a deferential stance.
Because the superiority of said being in whatever respects is not sufficient motivator for me to worship him. Sure, if said God, as a person, came down and spent some time with me, and hung out, I’d be more than willing to be his friend (provided he wasn’t the colossal dick the OT shows), but I don’t fear or live in awe of my friends. And some sort of fear or awe or general social inferiority is implicit in the word worship, however you choose to define it. “Worship” is not a relationship between equals, it’s a Master-dog relationship. I’m happy to have that relationship when I’m the master, not when I’m the dog. Even though my dog has a good life, he is still my dog, and not my friend. Not in that way.
Thing Fish, I’ve thought of another possible way to explain it - I am an atheist in the literal, pedantic sense. Even if God exists, I am against him. Even if it were not the most beneficial choice, because some things (my humanity, my dignity) go beyond the picayune minutiae of cost-benefit analysis. “Better to reign in hell…” kind of logic if there were a Biblical God, I admit. Never said I was original.
Thank you, MrDibble, I think I get it now. Or at least understand it.
Isn’t the literal sense “without God” rather than “against God?” Amoral, asexual, apathy all mean the absence of a particular thing. Anti means against.