Why does God need to be worshipped?

I see this as a non sequitur. This logic also supports the following:

quote:

---

An infinite, perfect, and autonomous being would contain within itself an infinite measure of deceit and perverseness.

---

Or, more formulaicly:

quote:

---

An infinite, perfect, and autonomous being would contain within itself an infinite measure of _____________.

---

To me, this is good evidence that He/She/It/Whatever did not make the world and us for His/Her/Its/Whatever's benefit, and that any religion or system of worship that is based upon this must postulate limits to God or its own falsehood (this is in accord with what you're suggesting). I always hesitate to discuss Mormon viewpoints to things here because nobody is really addressing them, but, since this thread offers the opportunity to hypothesize, I'll bite. The Mormon view is that earth life is a necessary step on the road to becoming a god. Therefore, God's purpose in creating the earth is not narcissistic, but benevolent: He wants to share the "good life" that He enjoys with us.As for the "why" there: maybe He is infinitely lonely at the top.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Grizz: you replied to Straggler's message instead of mine, so I didn't notice it until now. I was agreeing with that. I can't speak for the Protestant/Evangelical beliefs, but, in Mormon tradition, at least (and probably in other works-based denominations and movements), God's actions are motivated purely by concern for our welfare. Thus, everything is regarded as a teaching process. Worshiping (as in, the "Praise God! Hallelujah!" part) is asked of us so that we can learn humility, which in turn leads to honesty and better understanding of our current position before Him and in relation to our Eternal goal.And, God doesn't get anything out of it, except perhaps for the Divine equivalent of parental pride, or something like that. Again, I can only speak from a Mormon perspective, but we don't have a problem with limiting God: we make covenants which we consider binding on God, and we believe He is literally incapable of misleading us. We also believe in authority and offices, including the authority and "office" of God: while acting in the "office" of God, so to speak, God is bound to a certain set of duties and responsibilities, which include not deliberately misleading us, and fulfilling His side of a covenant that He has entered with us (as long as we fulfill our side).He has made His mission and purpose in regards to us clear: it is our salvation/exaltation. In my personal view, when He calls Himself "omnipotent," it generally means that He is capable of doing everything that is related to that purpose. He also does not particularly concern Himself with teaching us about what other purposes He may have in mind, so we are generally allowed free rein to speculate on things like evolution, whether or not He exists outside of our space-time, whether or not He can lift His own unliftable rock, etc.And, yes, this is different from a lot of mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is based upon much of the same information, and is attributed to the same God.So, I believe very strongly that the mainstream Christian view of God's personality (which was described well by Larni in message #4) is not correct.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Grizz: I've grown to respect you, your viewpoints and your logic during my time at EvC. Thank you for your input. Grizz, you make a good point, and I don't have the knowledge, evidence, faith or heart to try to refute it. I portray myself here on EvC as a devout Mormon (and I generally am), but I inevitably have my own concerns about my religion (including many of the ones you've brought up here), which often puts me at odds with my fellow Mormons and makes my mother condemn my actions sometimes.Well, in order to keep it related to the topic, I'll only mention my troubles with the "God needing worship" thing. I'm no literary expert, but I have read the Bible and the Book of Mormon all my life (the BoM was the first thing I actually read on my own, after a kid's book called "The Bee"). There is a very sharp distinction between OT, NT and BoM in terms of doctrinal/theological/mythological content, which has always confused me. God in the BoM is calm, gentle and loving throughout, and speaks openly about resurrection, spirits and repentance, and doesn't do an inordinate amount of "worship me, puny mortals" stuff. But the OT version of God is vengeful, jealous and narcissistic, does not get around to mentioning an afterlife, and would rather kill than forgive minor misdemeanors. And, these two books are partially synchronistic, meaning that God is either very two-faced, not the only god active at the time, or non-existent.I personally believe in something more akin to deism, wherein God is not as involved in events as we tend to think He is (this is mostly influenced by scientific evidences of gradual, cumulative changes in nature). Thus, each culture attributes to God a number of things that are not really His direct doing, all based on their local views on the nature of God. So, the Hebrews, who lived among many mutually-hostile peoples with lots of mean gods in their mythologies, thought of God as mean, demanding and quick to anger. The Nephites of the BoM generally subscribed to the gentler views of God held by their founding father, Lehi, and thus, attributed nice, happy things to Him, and evil things to their own disobedience. However, in truth, God was only actually involved in the most crucial bits of the stories.However, all this is moot when you factor in my refusal to definitively state whether I believe any scripture to be literal, historical truth.Either way, I don't see God striking you (Grizz "you") down for refusing to worship Him now (or for other admitted atheists speaking rudely about Him on this forum, or for Perdition having a "sacrilegious" alias, etc. other cliche protests), so I submit that, if He exists, and if He is, indeed, the Judeo-Christian God, He is not as vengeful or narcissistic as most mainstream Judeo-Christian types believe and as the OT portrays Him to be.

---

Darwin loves you.

He wasn't very satisfied with Achan's choice (Joshua 7) after Jericho, and He not only had Achan executed for it, but He made all of Israel suffer defeat at Ai. How about King Sihon of Heshbon, whose only sin was not wanting the Israelites to march their armies through his land (Deut. 2)? Or Er--we don't even know why God killed him, except that he was "evil in the sight of God" (1 Chron. 2:3)? These examples are not consistent with a God who is willing to honor an individual's personal choice. In fact, the plight of Achan, Sihon and Er is consistent with Larni's appraisal in Message #4 (i.e. megalomania and narcissism).You must either agree that (1) God is vindictive and narcissistic, (2) the Old Testament is mistaken or (3) God was vindictive and narcissistic in the time of the OT but isn't anymore. Which of those three fits your personal beliefs (I like #2 myself). I don't think you can blame Satan for Achan's, Sihon's or Er's deaths. The OT actually says God slew Er (1 Chron. 2:3), and says God does things like harden people's hearts so Israel will have an excuse to kill them.

---

Darwin loves you.

Wasn't it Satan that got the man to "open the box" in the first place? How did he do that if he wasn't already "out of the box" beforehand? That's ridiculous: He not only made sure Achan wouldn't do it again, He decided to take it out on all of Israel. In other words, He went out of His way to make His point clear, and had lots of people killed for it. This is that exact opposite of allowing personal choice. So, you believe that God has been changing over time? Are you suggesting that God just used the people of the OT as an example for us? Guinea pigs? They didn't get second chances, as God allows us nowadays. Was salvation ever on the table for them, in the first place? If so, why were the standards different before Christ came?

---

Darwin loves you.