Why does God need to be worshiped?

by Scully 132 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

LittleToe

SS:
I still don't see a demand by God that people worship Him, in those texts, sorry.
FMZ:You don't think that "love" needs an object?
Pole

FMZ wrote:
Farkel's analogy of the parent does not feel complete to me... although it can be amended to make it a little more accurate. Sure, any parent that requires worship from their child or else is a twisted individual, but, no parent needs this. No parent needs their child to look up to them. But, take a look from the child's viewpoint. What if a child turned away from their parent (just like those "Adam and Eve" characters)?
Just as I predicted: here we go with another exercise in expanding metaphors and abusing this aspect of language/cognition. IMO, Farkel's analogy (metaphor) only shows that religious metaphors cannot be verified in any objective way. They are inconsistent and mutually exclusive by nature. No need to complete them. Farkel only shows that the metaphor is a magic wand (to use a metaphor) which helps you make things what you want them to be.
Using the Bible can you tell me if God has human-like emotions?
God is a mighty warrior.
God is a loving parent.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Unverifiable anthropomorphic metaphors.
We can use metaphors. We cannot avoid using them most of the time. I have used a few dozens metaphors in this single post - and I can enumerate them if you like. There's nothing wrong with them as long as you have a way of confronting them with reality. If you can't verify them, then they may also be good for poetic purposes. But I think it is wrong to use an unverifiable metaphor to influence other people's behaviour or thinking. THe "Jehovah is a loving parent and thus we should worship him" kind of thing.
LT wrote:
Hence the believer's sensitivity. When you spit on someone's God you spit on another's personal parent...
I'm not sure who exactly spits on God on this thread (any hints?). I respect your right to personal beliefs, but I'd like to use your reasoning to prove my point, if you don't mind. It's actually more or less what I mean above.
You come up with this parent-child metaphor. You elaborate on it to make it fit your belief system, although there are alternative ways of elaborating on it - none of them truly verifiable. Then you imply that God is your parent and therefore even if we don't believe in his existence we should respect him just like we should respect your literal parents.
:: The parent analogy is a good one IMHO. In the first definition of worship, replace deity with parent and you'll perhaps get my gist. Parents expect love (even if they don't demand it), and don't expect that kind of love to migrate elsewhere. This is only natural, and for an example see how difficult it can initially be for a child to transfer love to a step-parent.
Just replace it, huh? As simple as that? And then what? Voila. We get the irresistable conclusion? Classic metaphorical fallacy.
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.
Ok, I'm getting carried away, because the only action you demanded from us (using the unverifiable metaphor) was respect for your beliefs. IF you simply illustrated the way you feel about things, then fine.
However most of the time, religious metaphors are abused to make people believe that much more is required from them.
Heck, look at the Theocratic School thing. They emphasize the use of examples (metaphors), however lame they are. WHy? Because the speaker/preacher who has mastered the art of analogy can then divert the listener's attention from the real problems with the verifiability of a doctrine and focus on the fairy tale world of infinitely flexible metaphors.
And most such examples come with some strings attached. THat is to say, people are made to think that just because things seem to add up in metaphors, they should spend their lives living by the preacher's interpretation of these metaphors.
That's my problem with religious metaphors.
Pole
Abaddon

Ross, the fate of those who do not worship Bible-god in the right way is scriptually quite clear.
Now, you can argue that Bible-god doesn't demand that people brush their teeth. But as Bible-god will kill all those that don't brush their teeth, it's a pretty pointless differentation.
The Conquistadors didn't FORCE anyone to become a Christian. They just killed those that didn't.
Oooo! Can you feel the freedom?!
As to your sensitivity; should we also be careful what we say about Santa/The Tooth FairyAllah/Buhhda/Azura-Mazda/Quezlecotl/Thor/Isis?
Should you be careful about what you say regarding atheism, humanism, evolution, natural selection? Why do you want to restrict others freedom of speech?
Just because YOU believe in a certain entity I fail to see why others should moderate their speech regarding that entity.
I'd defend to the death (as Voltaire says) you're right to believe in celestial bunny wabbits, if that was your wish and it didn't harm others. To have you turn around and tell me that I have to be careful about how I talk about celestial bunny rabbits is a bit much.
I realise of course that you don't believe in celestial bunny rabbits, but in something that (to you) is worthy of being spoken of respectfully. But that's the point. You're trying to 'force' others to conform to what you would do even if they believe differently and their actions cause you no reeal harm - the thin edge of a nasty wedge.
I can assure you, if Bible-god does exists he's more than capable of looking after himself; look at what happens to kids who call his prohet a slap-head!!
Any particular reason that your beliefs are becoming more exclusive or am I (once again) completely misreading you old bean?
All the best
Gyles
To have you
Surely you're aware your asking for favourable treatment
You seem to be
LittleToe

Didier:Incidentally, I would still state that those passages aren't even allegedly direct quotations
Pole:
I'm not sure who exactly spits on God on this thread (any hints?).
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).
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.
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.
Gyles:
As it happens I have a great deal of sensitivity towards others beliefs (or lack thereof) and attempt to display it. Did I fail so miserably?
You're trying to 'force' others to conform to what you would do even if they believe differently and their actions cause you no reeal harm - the thin edge of a nasty wedge.
No force, no wedges and no harm.
I merely highlighted the manor displayed lack of respect. Whatever others decide to do with that information is their business.
Any particular reason that your beliefs are becoming more exclusive or am I (once again) completely misreading you old bean?
You'd have to elaborate, old chum, as I'm not sure what you're refering to.
To the best of my knowledge, my comments were entirely generalised.
Surely you're aware your asking for favourable treatment
But it hurts so gooood!!!
StinkyPantz

LT-
Should we start with the categoric statements made in the first few posts of the thread?
SP Writes: He is a human invention. Some people feel the need to worship SOMETHING.. so..

I was giving a possible explanation as the answer to Scully's question. You know I am agnostic and am not sure either way. I wasn't meaning to sound 'categorical', just giving a possible explanation.
I also meant no disrespect.
That being said, I'd like to comment on this:
The parent analogy is a good one IMHO. In the first definition of worship, replace deity with parent and you'll perhaps get my gist. Parents expect love (even if they don't demand it), and don't expect that kind of love to migrate elsewhere. This is only natural, and for an example see how difficult it can initially be for a child to transfer love to a step-parent.
Parents do expect love, and do not expect it to migrate elsewhere. The difference though is that a GOOD parent does not give some children love and support and protection and then sit by and let other children be abused. If so, how dare they expect love from the child that they let horrible things happen to.. things they could've and should've stopped. I know I am going off topic, and I suppose you only agreed with the 'parent analogy' w/in the confines of the 'worship' aspect, but I saw other implications that I wanted to point out.
LittleToe

SP:You're right, it's off-topic, however, in answer; it is a reciprocating loving arrangement.
What parent shows more love to the children of another than for their own?
What's more, it's not the believer that loves first, as is also the case in the human relationship...
StinkyPantz

LT-
You're right, it's off-topic, however, in answer; it is a reciprocating loving arrangement.
What parent shows more love to the children of another than for their own?

This isn't fair. If the child tries hard to be obedient and the parent still offers no support, of course the love will NO LONGER be reciprocated. How long must the child try?
What's more, it's not the believer that loves first, as is also the case in the human relationship...
I don't get this.. lol..
(going further off topic.. sorry)
Narkissos

Ross:
Incidentally, I would still state that those passages aren't even allegedly direct quotations

Which passages?
You want direct quotations? Is "God's Word" in the Bible limited to direct quotations of the speaker "God"? (another interesting theological question btw).
OK, here's Exodus 4:23 in NRSV:
Let my son go that he may worship me.
(also 7:16; 8:1,20; 9:1,13; 10:3, with "my people" instead of "my son").
Another one with the very original (priestly) meaning of "worship" = "practical service" can be found in 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.
Pas de foi sans mauvaise foi? (Sorry this one cannot be translated into English...).
LittleToe

SP:
I don't mind going offtopic, but others might
Seeing as we're concentrating on this analogy, lets continue on that theme, you and I (and anyone else who cares to join in):
No matter how hard a child tries to be extra nice to a parent other than their own, will that parent look to them as their own? I suspect not, even if they do come to care at some level. What is unfair about that?
StinkyPantz

LT-
No matter how hard a child tries to be extra nice to a parent other than their own, will that parent look to them as their own? I suspect not, even if they do come to care at some level. What is unfair about that?

This isn't what I was saying.. when did the parent suddenly become not this child's parent? I was talking about the child's real parent.
I'm going to class now, so no need to answer me..

Why does God need to be worshiped?

Share this