What does God want with a Starship, or God's interest in man

[The_Scrivener]

I don’t think that the Old Testament God ever was a universalist one, appealing to all the earth’s peoples. AFAIK, He only manifested Himself to His Chosen People (the Hebrews/Israelites), and never cultivated any relationship with any other group. Virtually the only mentions the other ethnic groups (the Philistines, Canaanites, Ammonites, Hittites, Shumanites, Egyptians, etc.) get in the OT are in the context of their conflict with the Israelites and, depending on whether the latter has been sufficiently worshipful of God, how God ends up rewarding or punishing His Chosen People on the battlefield.

I hardly know what’s worse: to be God’s favorites, and so be held to a different and higher standard of conduct and absolute obedience to His dictates and whims, however arbitrary or even silly they may be (actually, to be held to any standard at all; God didn’t communicate with the heathens, period), or to be used as God’s tool of retribution to punish Hebraic irreverence, via a military defeat, enslavement, political subjugation and heavy taxation, or what have you.

So if God’s the Father of all humankind, He’s a parent of extremely questionable wisdom and fairness, playing overt favorites like that, urging his children to fight and kill each other, and letting the outcome be determined by how slavishly appreciative his favorite kid has been acting. I mean, if this religion isn’t a thinly veiled metaphor of the state of human relations and government at the time, with all its brute force, authoritarianism, and ignorance, I don’t know what is.

Now it’s true that Jesus preached a universalist message and that the religion which emerged in the name of an honorific of sorts imputed to him has always stressed conversions and witnessing his message to the peoples of the world and so forth – but even this evangelism, so at odds with the Judaic traditions that Christianity emerged from, occurred with a rabbi as its messiah active first and foremost in the Jewish community. It’s not as if Jesus travelled the Marco Polo route and then some, reaching more of the peoples of the world. Better yet, if God really wanted to spread a new universalist message to everyone, why rely on a single prophet (who by circumstance was only going to reach and appeal to a small number of people)? Why not emblazon the new message in the skies for everyone to see and read it in a loud booming voice for the benefit of the 98% [or thereabouts] of the population which was illiterate?

[Homebrew]

@cosmosdan

I agree except that I don’t think it is God asking us to worship him but religious leaders and those who feel the need for the God as father figure feeling. IMHO God’s interest in man is because we are connected to God and to each other. We make choices that deny or affirm the truth of that connection. Our choices are based on whether we believe in, understand, feel, or have faith in, that connection, or not.

If God wants anything it for us to wake up and see and feel that connection and act accordingly. Not worship. Worship can help if it is transitional, but at some point we need to claim personal responsibility for our choices, and see ourselves as equal parts of the whole rather than remain in a dependent child mindset.

I think the author of Isaiah agrees:

Isaiah 1:
[sup]10[/sup]Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

[sup] 11[/sup]To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

[sup] 12[/sup]When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

[sup] 13[/sup]Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

[sup] 14[/sup]Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

[sup] 15[/sup]And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

[sup] 16[/sup]Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

[sup]17[/sup]Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. It sounds to me that social justice and goodness is more pleasing to God than worship.

Alternatley the fictional novel The Devil’s Apocraphya posits that God feeds on prayers and adulation and manipulated events to cause man to worship him as a food source.

[cosmosdan]

@The Scrivener

Now it’s true that Jesus preached a universalist message and that the religion which emerged in the name of an honorific of sorts imputed to him has always stressed conversions and witnessing his message to the peoples of the world and so forth – but even this evangelism, so at odds with the Judaic traditions that Christianity emerged from, occurred with a rabbi as its messiah active first and foremost in the Jewish community. It’s not as if Jesus travelled the Marco Polo route and then some, reaching more of the peoples of the world. Better yet, if God really wanted to spread a new universalist message to everyone, why rely on a single prophet (who by circumstance was only going to reach and appeal to a small number of people)? Why not emblazon the new message in the skies for everyone to see and read it in a loud booming voice for the benefit of the 98% [or thereabouts] of the population which was illiterate?

I don’t think God did rely on a single prophet. The spiritual journey that Jesus spoke of is something that takes place within the individual. I doubt a loud booming voice or a message emblazoned in the sky would make people choose love rather than fear or power.

[Othersider]

@Lightnin'

I find it very hard to believe that a good deed doesn’t count if you do it out of the kindness of your heart, if you don’t have the GOD ™ stamp of approval on it. I hate the whole “You just THINK you’re a good person- you’re actually a bad, bad person if you don’t believe in God.” This implies that a bad person is automatically a good person if they profess belief in God- that God really only wants lip service, rather than actions.

I don’t believe this, not for a second. I’ve known some people who claim to be believers, but (in my humble opinion) have some fairly grievous faults*, and likewise I’ve known some genuinely great people who weren’t. If there is a correlation between belief in God and how good a person is (by earthly standards, anyway), I don’t think it’s much of one.

I don’t think very much of the lip-service thing, either. It’s not like God doesn’t know what’s in your heart, anyway.

• Not that I don’t have faults, I do - but this isn’t about me; it’s about my perception of others.