why would god want us to worship him?

Hokie and STL you both already own beamers so stuff it. lol

Try this exercise:

Go to Borders Bookstore, or Dalton's.
Pick up the latest John Grisham novel.
Pay for it and take it home.
You now have the power and intelligence to skip the first 150 pages and go right to the end. But you might not do that.

God has no more obligation to peer into our moral futures than you have to peek at the end of the whodunit.

er, getting back to the omnipotent One, in light of this passage,

3you shall have no other gods before me. 4You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

there's clear disapproval of those who worship other gods, but what about agnostics, atheists, and the like who worship no god? are they still numbered among those who "reject" Yahweh? then i say that Yahweh is narcissistic & patriarchal.

sorry about revisiting an old post, but i think it could stand some clarification:

neologist wrote:

Try this exercise:

Go to Borders Bookstore, or Dalton's.
Pick up the latest John Grisham novel.
Pay for it and take it home.
You now have the power and intelligence to skip the first 150 pages and go right to the end. But you might not do that.

God has no more obligation to peer into our moral futures than you have to peek at the end of the whodunit.

the analogy only fits if the future is already written. or are you implying that the ending of a novel might change depending on whether you read it cover to cover or skip to the end? in that case, Schrodinger's cat might be a better analogy.

Aside from the fact that I find it intellectually refreshing to talk with atheists, the fact remains that in the issue raised by Satan in Eden, there are only 2 sides.

neologist wrote:

Aside from the fact that I find it intellectually refreshing to talk with atheists, the fact remains that in the issue raised by Satan in Eden, there are only 2 sides.

If you find yourself in need of more refreshment, in addition to the one above, you left one hanging here.

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:

If they had perfect consciences, why were they not ashamed of being naked before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Beyond that my first question was what in the heck is there wrong or evil in the first place about the only two humans in existence being naked.

you perhaps have answered your first question with your second.

Perhaps not. The Bible clearly implies that there is a problem with their nakedness since they immediately began to cover up once their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good and evil.

yitwail wrote:

sorry about revisiting an old post, but i think it could stand some clarification:

neologist wrote:

Try this exercise:

Go to Borders Bookstore, or Dalton's.
Pick up the latest John Grisham novel.
Pay for it and take it home.
You now have the power and intelligence to skip the first 150 pages and go right to the end. But you might not do that.

God has no more obligation to peer into our moral futures than you have to peek at the end of the whodunit.

the analogy only fits if the future is already written. or are you implying that the ending of a novel might change depending on whether you read it cover to cover or skip to the end? in that case, Schrodinger's cat might be a better analogy.

Analogies are almost never completely sufficient, are they?

If God knew in advance the misery that would befall his creation, then it would be reasonable to conclude that all this evil at one time existed only within the mind of God before he visited it on us in some horrific act of celestial sadism. .

Not that Frank might not conclude this was so, but then you would have to wonder how such an evil force could produce humans which (often) show outstanding traits of love, justice and mercy

neologist wrote:

. . . Analogies are almost never completely sufficient, are they?

If God knew in advance the misery that would befall his creation, then it would be reasonable to conclude that all this evil at one time existed only within the mind of God before he visited it on us in some horrific act of celestial sadism. .

i think that's a good point, actually. doesn't god know everything? surely the omnipotent one knew what would happen with the apple. free-will is only an illusion if one party knows outcome.

Quote:

Not that Frank might not conclude this was so, but then you would have to wonder how such an evil force could produce humans which (often) show outstanding traits of love, justice and mercy

it is also equally as common for humans to demonstrate exquisite shows of hatred and immorality and murderous abandon. and usually, is has been in the name of god or religion. we have historically slaughtered entire civilizations for exercising their free-will to believe something else.

If God knew in advance the misery that would befall his creation, then it would be reasonable to conclude that all this evil at one time existed only within the mind of God before he visited it on us in some horrific act of celestial sadism. Not that Frank might not conclude this was so, but then you would have to wonder how such an evil force could produce humans which (often) show outstanding traits of love, justice and mercy.

To say that god does not know everything is blasphemous by most standards of the major religions. The vast majority of "the faithful" readily concedes that god is both omnipotent and omniscient.

Just to review:
omnipotent = capable of anything
omniscient = knowing of all things

So my question is this: Why would a being that is simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient ever intervene in the world based on human action? It would be like playing a game of chess where you knew exactly what your opponent was going to do.... pointless.

Regarding the sinning in the Garden of Eden, did god say, "Oh, I didn't know that was going to happen... let me fix that for you by sending down my kid... in forty centuries..."?

It seems that, in order to simultaneously take the story of creation seriously and believe that man has free will, you have to concede that god is either:

1. NOT capable of everything or
2. NOT aware of the future

.... doesn't it?

neologist wrote:

If God knew in advance the misery that would befall his creation, then it would be reasonable to conclude that all this evil at one time existed only within the mind of God before he visited it on us in some horrific act of celestial sadism. Not that Frank might not conclude this was so, but then you would have to wonder how such an evil force could produce humans which (often) show outstanding traits of love, justice and mercy.

you have a point, but it doesn't establish the creator's benevolence. a creator indifferent to its creatures' well-being might well allow all manner of altruistic behavior.

Would you say that even a run-of-the-mill parent wants the best for his/her offspring?

If major religions don't agree with the bible, it is not the fault of the bible.

neologist wrote:

Would you say that even a run-of-the-mill parent wants the best for his/her offspring?

that's true even--or perhaps especially--with non-humans: mammals, birds, even certain fishes. but again, the analogy is flawed, since the same creator that created humans also created disease organisms.