Thread: Does god care if you worship him?

That's actually the main thing that drove me away from religion. People are so preoccupied with spreading their "correct" religion that they don't stop to remember that their obligation to be a decent human being to their fellow man, even if they belong to a "wrong" church.

Originally posted by Alric
Assuming for a second you believe in a kind god, would he really care if you worshipped him? Lets say you follow all the teachings of a christian but you don't believe there is a god, would you go to hell because of that?

If you tried to live the best life you could and tried to be as nice as you could, how could any compassionate god disaprove? I mean, does it really matter what religion you follow as long as you try to be a good person?

A lot of people seem to think its very important though. If your a nice person but you don't follow the right "god" your going to burn in hell or something. Or you might not go to hell but you won't get into heaven. Why would any kind god care though? Wouldn't trying to be a good person be the only thing that matters?

That is what belief is all about. Belief is proof with out proof! Proof that you worship him. And by doing so you love him unconditionally. That is all he requires, no?
The issue is...What if you can't believe. I just can't make myself believe in many of the doctrines that I would be required to believe in.
Yes. I wish so that by living a good life, as i personally try to do that he would be merciful enough for you to not burn in hell. From the way I understand, that is not the case though.

Belief is proof with out proof! Proof that you worship him. And by doing so you love him unconditionally. That is all he requires, no? [/b]

in many belief systems unfortunately...

from years and years of breaking free from fundamentalist christianity (which is summed up succinctly in the above quote), i can now sum up my defense against that primitive fear-based theology in a simple phrase...

God knows me as well as i know myself.

and so i am at peace, and spend my time refining myself, instead of groveling in worship before some deity who keeps his toys in perpetual darkness, and feasts on their fearful adulations.

instead i have come to freely speak what i believe to be true.... i am supposed to train myself to see clearly. and more and more i see that any 'God" worth 'its' salt wishes to commune with me as an equal, not as ruler over blind subject.

"physician, heal thyself"

How can anyone have total faith in someone they never met? Wouldn't it always be better to have total faith in doing what you think is right instead?

Indeed, the world would be a better place if we did have such commitment to morals and values rather than faith and passion for a superior being. Being passionately employed for some divine being is a good thing on the surface, but it creates tension all around. Baptists and Mormons around my home in Utah have been known to be ill-at-ease with each other for years. There's most certainly no open conflict, but people's trust and caring for eachother are diminished because the other person believes in worshipping slightly differently. The example I brought up earlier makes the issue even clearer: Baptists and Mormons both believe in the SAME diety, God and Jesus Christ, it's only the details of the religion that the conflict is over! It's an issue which causes much more conflict than actual good.
Another example of late is the Muslim outrage over the political comics. They're throwing gasoline bombs into embassies, rioting in the streets, all because a few comics were published pointing out existing flaws with their society. Overreaction tends to be the main flaw of religion, and a good reason to become atheist, or at the very least agnostic.

Again, no.

Worship is much like Eulogy for the Dead. Nobody asks for it. It is simply done.

Also, where much of Eulogy is exaggerated, so Worship is not meant to be taken literally. The Language of both Eulogy and Worship are equally hyperbolic.

God does not factor in Worship, except as it may be uncomfortable and inconvenient enough to count as Atonement. When people complain that I look unenthusiastic in my Prayers, I tell them "Good! Its not intended to be fun or exciting. The closer such acts of penance go toward approximating Pain, the more effective is the penance. And who but a Sadist could be enthusiastic about what is painful. 'Enthusiasm' then would be rather a counter-indicator of what one is really trying to achieve."

However, there has been some crossover between Sado-Masochism and the practices of Ascetic Atonement. For instance, I've known of some small shops dealing in such implements of self-torture, that half of their clientel are sado-masochistic perverts and the other half are monks and nuns and Third Order Religious.

Anyway, regarding Heaven -- the criteria for entry is simple compatability. Heaven is for Civilized Souls that can thrive in an environment of commonality and sharing. Think of a Flock of Sheep. If one can be a Sheep and get along with all of the other Sheep, then Heaven is in your Destiny.

Hell is for the Wolves. The Barbarians. The individualists. The Selfish, the Competive, the Predatory. Republicans, Tories, Libertarians.

And, no, God did not create hell, and God does not assign guards, and inflict punishments. Just as God is not responsible on Earth for what Barbaric Governments do, so God is not responsible for how those in hell run the place. Just think about it. If you were to go to Hell, and those others who go to Hell could enslave you and torture you and exploit you if you should fall under their power, then what would you do, if you were first on the scene yourself. Well, it would occur to you, or somebody, to round up all competing souls and to bind them up so that they would be powerless and no longer represent a threat. Like George Bush placing Saddam Hussein under arrest. Like any unalateral War. The Predators who are kept our of Heaven fight among themselves for the Territories of Hell, and the game can get understandably rough. But God, again, has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Tsen
Indeed, the world would be a better place if we did have such commitment to morals and values rather than faith and passion for a superior being. .

But the Conception of a High Moral God represents a Focal Ideal.

where can one find any sense for Morality if one has no High Moral Focal Ideal?

Again, look at the Materialists. Nothing can ever be 'proven' to them, and so they all eventually arrive to the point where no Moral Ideal can be 'proven' either, and all ideals are given up as self-defeating, and these Materialists turn to a Predatory Pragmatism.

What im interested in knowing , is if you take away the bible is there any reason why people would think God wants them to live a good and honest life ? The universe is centred around destruction and creation , it is a part of every life on this planet , stealing , killing , coveting , all in the name of survival . Why would God create a world which functions on the very sins the bible seeks to outlaw ?

I would imagine if there were a God that created everything , that it would not be your classical stereotypical loving caring God who stands for truth and justice , the law of this world is the way of survival by any means necesarry . So you would think that if God decided to created an environment or an ecosystem it would be in his reflection , the way he operates or thinks .

Just a though to maybe keep people open to alternative possibilities .

Originally posted by Darkmatic
What im interested in knowing , is if you take away the bible is there any reason why people would think God wants them to live a good and honest life ? The universe is centred around destruction and creation , it is a part of every life on this planet , stealing , killing , coveting , all in the name of survival . Why would God create a world which functions on the very sins the bible seeks to outlaw ?

I would imagine if there were a God that created everything , that it would not be your classical stereotypical loving caring God who stands for truth and justice , the law of this world is the way of survival by any means necesarry . So you would think that if God decided to created an environment or an ecosystem it would be in his reflection , the way he operates or thinks .

Just a though to maybe keep people open to alternative possibilities .

Well, the Bible might not be the best representative Scripture for what what has become a Synthesis of Higher Religions. You see, the Bible comes out of a mixed heretage -- a Nomadic Pastoral Warrior Tribe, which is a Bad Thing, but much of the Bible was plaguarized from Babylonnian Materials from out of the Sumaric and Zoroastrian Traditions, which was a good thing. So, essentially we must look to those sections of the Bible which foster and promote Civilized and Moral values. The Ten Commandments are a moralizing factor. The Sermon on the Mount are moralizers. But in both the Old and New Testaments we have encouragments to evil -- Paul created a Doctrine for Permissive Evil in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament there are perfect scondrels such as Jacob, and indulgent Playboys such as King David, and homosexual Prophets such as Samuel who abandoned his very own King Saul for his new Pretty Boy David... no, I do not mind Homosexuality, but it it is a horrible endorcement for political opportunism that the Bible condones such interested betrayals for all the wrong reasons.

so, I think it is a bit parochial when anybody isolates and focusses entirely on the Bible. The World is more Cosmopolitian than that. Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and then Christianity, and then these influences helped to bring the Mahayana Transformation into Buddhism (when original Buddhism was not a sliver different from classical Stoicism -- peaceful enough but entirely amoral except where abiding by the law was conducive to easy living and being carefree), and these influences all made inroads into Hindu moral and spiritual practices. And then the Influences circle back. You see, where you have the Dogmatists of the various Religions, which all of the Atheists focus on because this is where all their arguments are addressed, but you have another Contingent that is perhaps more important ultimately , and this is the influence of the Religious Brotherhoods. All of the Higher Religions have Religious Orders of Monks and Nuns, and these people interact across Religious Divides. this is why you can't isolate and focus on the Bible, because where Actual Practice is concerned, there are external influences beyond just the Bible.

For instance, take Martin Luther of Protestantism. His big complaint against the Catholic Church is that it departed from the Bible. yeap, it sure did. Take Modern Islamic Fundamentalism. its big complaint against the more Civilized Schools of Islamic thought is that they have departed from the pure Koran. Yeap, we should all hope so. Also, we have factions of Hindu Fundamentalism which are now defending old Vedantic Racial Supremacy (after all, the Aryan Brahmins were a bunch of white tribes who invaded India from the North, and established the Chaste System as a kind of Apartheid System). These Modern Brahmins are reacting against modern sentiments of equality and universal brotherhood. Each Spiritual Scripture by itself has been found inadequate in dealing with all of the issues regarding Civilized Practices and Moralities, and other Moral Influences had to be borrowed from outside.

Originally posted by Darkmatic


What i meant by when you take away the bible was if you take away the belief system which according to many different religions with small variations of content is the word of God , and look at the nature of the world , animals , echosystems , they all operate on these evils . It is animal instinct , even early man had this animal instinct driving him ,as does modern man nomatter how much he trys to suppress it . So if God created man with this natural instinct for taking advantage of a situation , then maybe he intended man to be like this and to embrace it .

However , of course i realise how morals are advantageous to living in todays world , but early man relied on this natural instinct to survive , and that is why i think we shouldn't cast that instinct out as evil for it was oviously there for a purpose . Evolution has engraved it into our minds , and the time may come in the future when man is forced to revert to this way , not by choice but by necessity for survival of the species .

I know im kind of mixing topics here but thats how i came to this conclusion .

The Problem that you are now expressing is that we live in a Barbarian Culture. Yes, if this were the Jungle, and we were all Apes, you would rather have a point. And, yes, after the defeat inflicted upon Civilization by the ascendency of Barbarian Protestantism and Free Masonry (The Masons really run everything, don't they?) it may look like Evil is the Prevalent and Natural Condition of Humanity.

So you need to study History and Archeology. There IS such a thing as Civilization.

Do you believe in Evolution. Well, fine, so do I. Moral Evolution. Homo Sapiens came out of the trees and learned to live in the Savanahs, then learned to build the Cathedrals, and then landed on the Moon. We can become Moral Beings.

Originally posted by Darkmatic


Of course i know man has also lived in communities striving for common good , but at the same time , individuals got ahead by doing what wasnt right according to the bible , and in many cases were better off for it . I see man as a two sided being , on one side , he knows what is good and right and just and wishes for peace , but at the same time he enjoys the thrill of the hunt , and alot of the time will take advantage of a situation despite the conflicting of morals . Infact it is civilisation which has suppressed this instinct , but the instinct will never go away , atleast not for a few thousand years .

Who know where man will be in the next few thousand years , he may be exploring the far reaches of space , mopping up the mess which our current generation has do to this earth , or maybe war will have forced civilisation to take a different path .

Yes, yes, yes, but whenever you have conditions where Individual Greed dominates over Civilized Values, then you have the collapse of Civilization into a largely dysfunctional Barbarism. Ultimately Civilizations are stronger that Barbarism, because Civilizations rise out of Barbarism, and then Civilizations act like huge magnets attracting urse-while Barbarians into Civilized Communities.

Yes, in the Short Period of Archeological Time that there have been Civilization (over the last 10,000 years in the 100 Million Year History of Homo Sapien) there have been just 20 or 21 Civilizations, and, yes, all of them have failed. But it is a rather new Experiment in Culture, and I think after about 80 or 100 additional Civilizations, over the next 50,000 years we will begin to smooth down the rough spots.

But my point is that while it may appear that individuals may profit from Anti-Social and amoral actions, these actions result in the Collapse of the Dysfunctional Civilization that allowed and permitted such behavior.

When Civilization finally arrives at a viable Morality, and then enforces it 100%, then there will no longer be a problem. And look. We are now at an age where it seems that almost all information can be monitored. We are at the Threshold of feasible enforcement. China may be the Pioneer of the First Sustainable Civilization, as they have imposed Order, and have it in their capacity to impose a Social Morality and then implant the Information Technologies to monitor and guarantee compliance. Now, it would be my wish that they give an educated look toward the Higher Religions and evaluate how these Religions may be able to help them toward their goals. As Voltaire pointed out, Religion provides all the advantages of a Police State, without needing to hire any of the police, as Religion enforces itself.

Originally posted by Darkmatic


Leo , i hope this isnt too intruse a question but i would be interested in what your motivations are towards practicing religion , is it the spiritual gain you get , the sense of community or something else maybe . If i remember correctly you recently converted to catholocism ?

Oh, that is a good question.

One practices Religion because of Duty and Obligation. One practices Religion because that is what one is supposed to do. As soon as I was convinced of the verified Truth of the Marian Aparitions, then I became Catholic. All the Sacraments. I am utterly blameless. Yet, as you may have noticed, I took the time to examine Catholic Doctrines carefully and discerned that Paul had been their Antichrist and the source of all their historic and spirutual difficulties.

You see, I am an old man. I have jumped into my Dreams with both feet since I was a Young Man (yes, I can remember way back when). I fought and I struggled and I gained Spiritual Patronage, and the support of Angels . They showed me that I should simply behave Responsibly. So, when I determined the Blessed Virgin Truly Existed and Patronized a certain Religion, I joined it. But seeing that the Religion was in need of repair and maintenance, I offered my services.

Duty, Obligation, Responsiblity. but most importantly, what an Angel was instructed me, "The Most Important Faculty worth cultivating is the Faculty of True Discernment".

Now, that was not only just casual advice, but I suspect was the presentation of a Gift -- that Angel had given me the Faculty of True Discernment -- or initiated me into a Process which I successfully passed through. In eithe case, now, I have the Faculty of True Discernment. And so I see the Wisdom the Religion. And I see the Wisdom of Civilization. And I see the mistakes that everyone is making.

Have you heard of Cassandre. Zeus placed a curse upon her, and as we know, everything from the Gods is equally a Blessing and a Curse. But in Cassandre's Case, she would see True Premonitions and always tell the Truth, but nobody woud believe her.

We now live in the Age of Cassandre. Science has convinced nobody to believe anything.

so nobody believes me.

Just so everyone knows , I said all that stuff Leo has quoted .

Anyway , okay so i see thats why you have chosen catholacism over other religions . The reason i have trouble believing such apparitions is because the people who make such claims may have ulterior motives for claiming being witness to such events , maybe a wanting of spiritual aknowlegement . But then maybe they might genuinly think they saw such things . Of course its impossible to know such things for sure despite all the claims , and for a person like me who can only make such decisions based on actual evidence ( i guess that makes me doubting Thomas ) it is hard to accept this . You obviously have had a fulfilling life spiritually , through whatever reason and taking that into account i can only keep an open mind on such things and not count out the chances that there is a God .

However i do enjoy debating and theorising about God and spirituality which is why i partake in conversations such as this one .

Originally posted by Leo Volont
We now live in the Age of Cassandre. Science has convinced nobody to believe anything.

so nobody believes me.

How can you blame science? It merely tries to describe the world we live in, as that I can understand that it can explain things that false religions attribute or attributed to God which may ultimately lead to redundancy of their God as an entity that controls and gives order to all the things we don't understand, but religions that take God as an answer too all questions like that don't deserve anything more than being proved wrong. Your True Religion should dissociate itself from the hatred towards science initiated by the false religions in fear of it showing nonsensicality of their dogmas. The reason why nobody believes you also has more to do with false religions, rather than with science.

"Just so everyone knows , I said all that stuff Leo has quoted."
You mean in his twenty CONSECUTIVE posts?

Survival of the fittest. Survive- survive- survive. That is ultimately what every creature on earth is trying to do. Survive and procreate.
But us sentient beings now have rationalization to add to this fear that is beyond your mear fight or flight fear.
We must now rationalize death. And what will become of us after death.
It does seem like a primal instinct to sin.
I think that the bible is a derived by some very wise men to create a crutch for the failures in our nature.
Had they foreseen how much death it caused over holy wars they may have revised it. Once again, human nature super seeding good. It is unlikely some "devil" making us do this.
It is the twisted version of existence you get when you compile a sentient, conscience, being with the fear of death.
And you will notice EVERY society has come up with their own religion. Not just the one with the a Bilble. They all create their own doctrines & set of beleifs in order to somehow cope with a inevitable question of death. We fear it, so we want insurance.
Yes we will go to a better place if...
And if you do this....... You will make it there. Creating a better place for the society as a whole while they are alive.

Thats the big difference between people and animals. We all know we will die some day. So the question shouldn't be, how can I survive, but how should I live?

Originally posted by Alric
Thats the big difference between people and animals. We all know we will die some day. So the question shouldn't be, how can I survive, but how should I live?

I like that! Very well put.
But you either go on living through a belief or ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Both are very opposite and would seemingly bring about two very different outcomes
So if there is no god, Where has this conscience been born out of? Compassion?
We have so many emotional gifts that animals do not. Is this a result of evolution or a gift from god for us to ponder these questions/
That is all it spawns is more questions. To me at least.

Yea compassion but also sympathy. There is one thing that we know for sure, and it doesn't matter what you believe. You only live once. Even if you believe in reincarnation, then you only live as your current self once, and you wont remeber it. If you believe you live on in heaven, your still can't come back here. And if your gone forever when you die, then thats the worse of all, so its even more important to make the time you have important.

If you know this, why would you cause pain to someone else and ruin the short amount of time they will ever have on earth? Everyone has had pain before, and everyone fears death atleast a little. So we can all relate. I don't know where sympathy comes from but I know I feel it. Maybe it shows you have a soul and so it proves there is a god. Who knows?

Just to note: Darwinism (Evolution) never entails "survival of the fittest". That was a term coined by an aspiring business man who corrupted the theory, then applied it to society ("Social Darwinism").

Darwinism entails something different: Survival of those most reactive to change. Environmental, social, political, etc. When something changes, those that aren't sufficiently flexible become extinct. Social activity was an amazingly effective pathway for evolution, because as creatures learn to work together and communicate, they become much more survivable in the face of change.
In humankind's case, we've developed BOTH intelligence and a complex social system, bringing a new type of behavior into existence: Humans, in order to succeed in the long term, need to work together. An individual human who would sacrifice the good of the rest of the people for his own profit is undesirable in the eyes of science. It's these people that put a stop on the potential of the human race. They corrupt our society and prevent us from working as a complete team.

This, then, is science's morals.

Leo, you also seemed to contradict yourself by saying that societies who reject moral order will return to barbarism, then also saying that science rejects all morals.
As I stated above, science has very clear morals, and ones that are more or less the same as your own. Not only this, but science seeks to create more order, more teamwork and more peace. In effect, science seeks to destroy barbarism, not return to it.

As to your remark on China, true, they do have a certain amount of power over the people. But the people have no power over them, and they are left open to corruption. The corruption has already began spreading, as it is. Thus China is doomed to failure. They do not realize the people's needs, and they most certainly don't work towards those needs. They're against civilization and order. They're the most perfect example of science's antichrist: They seek to grow strong and prosper by walking on the heads of their people. Without bending to comply to the people's needs, they will not survive long, as the people will leave them.

Point and case: Tianamen Square. "The People's Army that murdered The People."

An infintely intelligent being would understand why i am an atheist. If he understands how incredibly hard I have tried to make sense of Christianity and not been able to do it, and he has a problem with my lack of belief any way, he has serious personality issues and is not worthy of worship.

If you think this is worship ----->

No god does not need or desire this.

Do you requite your dog to worship you? Do you require your pet fish to worship you? Your rat? your hamster? your rabbit?

I'm sure you don't care if they worship you. You just love them anyway.

If you define worship as gratitude and moral obligation to good. As living what is true. God still does not need for you to do that but you will learn whats true and it will make you free. And you cannot avoid it anyway.

Originally posted by SoonToBeBanned Boris
No god does not need or desire this.

You don't know that.

Soon to be banned ses who

Your momma