Belief vs Disbelief

[Dave Ellis]

So I got to thinking...

Would God have any preference to me being a believer in a false god over being the skeptic unbeliever I am know?

To put it another way, would God (and I'm talking about the Christian God here) rather me believe in some kind of God over not believing in any God?

I already know how he feels about disbelievers. Now I'm wondering what if I decide to believe in God (I don't even think that is something you can just decide but for the sake of the OP, I decide) but let's say I'm more convinced by Islam? Would God rather me go back to the skeptic I am now over believing in a god other that YHWH?

My bet would be he'd be more angry at someone worshipping a false God than not believing at all.

I base that off biblical stories (i.e. the golden calf, etc) where he seems to get extra-infuriated at worshippers of rival gods... Where the only clear example of a non believer I can think of is Thomas, who Jesus just simply shows the evidence to.

I know there's a difference there between the angry god of the old testament vs Jesus.... however there aren't many examples of full on non-believers in the Old Testament.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My bet would be he'd be more angry at someone worshipping a false God than not believing at all.

I base that off biblical stories (i.e. the golden calf, etc) where he seems to get extra-infuriated at worshippers of rival gods... Where the only clear example of a non believer I can think of is Thomas, who Jesus just simply shows the evidence to.

I know there's a difference there between the angry god of the old testament vs Jesus.... however there aren't many examples of full on non-believers in the Old Testament.

Nor is it clear why non-belief should be punished at all. Various explanations are offered, but none are satisfying.

 

[Lukaris]

Nor is it clear why non-belief should be punished at all. Various explanations are offered, but none are satisfying.

posted by accident after accidently deleting my post. will try to get back.

 

[brightlights]

No, those are things that I pursue or admire or am committed too, not things I worship. Worship refers to an act of religious devotion usually directed toward some supernatural being.

At this point our disagreement is purely semantic. This is what I mean when I say "worship".

 

[brightlights]

Can you expound on this a bit?

I would be happy to.

I'm not sure I 'worship' anything. There are plenty of things I enjoy doing. There's plenty of things I love. But I wouldn't call any of those things god.

Enjoying and loving is part of worship but doesn't in an of itself constitute worship. We love what we worship but just because we love something doesn't mean we worship it. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for worship. All that to say, I'm not saying that just because you enjoy something that means that it plays a god-like role in your life. On the other hand, just because you don't personalize any deity or use "god" language doesn't mean that there's nothing in your life that functions as divine.

If there is anything I deify, it is nature itself. I'm am in complete awe of the natural world. Complex systems are fascinating and nothing gets more complex than the universe. But I don't worship the universe.

I'm trying to spell this out for a sermon I'm preparing. A "god" is at least three things:

1. An ultimate source
2. A master
3. A savior

Source meaning the fountainhead of any good thing we seek. What's the ultimate source of pleasure, comfort, power, etc? Whatever is the ultimate source in your eyes is a god.

Master meaning that we obey the thing. What value, person, need, or impulse are you serving? All of us obey something. We obey our desires and values and behind those desires and values are created things or God himself. Whatever you ultimately obey is a god.

Savior meaning what or who you turn to for help in times of trouble and distress. Whatever you expect to save you at the end of the day is functioning as a god. When all else is falling apart in your life, what do you turn to and say: "well at least I've got this". That thing is functioning as a god.

But how do you differentiate between false worship and true worship?

According to the Bible false worship is when you look to any created thing or false image of God as a source, master, and savior. True worship is finding these things in Jesus Christ.

And what's wrong with worshipping things other than God?

It may be coming together at this point. The problem with false worship is that it doesn't work. God is the only true source, only master worth obeying, and only true savior. Put anything else in His place and it will slowly kill you.

But money does give you power, freedom and comfort. Praying to God for these things doesn't seem to work so people have to work for them themselves. I can see now why people might turn their devotion to their careers and money more than God.

Exactly. It's so easy to get caught up in the creature (money, job) and forget the creator. Money does give these things to a limited extent but God is the one who ultimately gives them. If anyone is powerful it's because God has made him so. God gave the money. God could take it away at any time. It's simply recognizing what the true source is. Money makes us feel powerful, free, and comfortable but it's too unreliable. It could be gone at any moment. Find these things in Jesus and you'll never lose them. Even if you're broke you'll still have comfort, freedom, and power in Christ.

 

[Davian]

Liking something and worshipping something are different. Worship is unyielding commitment and faith. I suppose it is possible to worship cookies but I wouldn't see that as a common idol of our culture.

I would venture to say that there is something that you have an unyielding commitment to and faith in. You worship that thing.

I cannot think of anything in my life to which that would apply. While I need money to live, I have walked away from jobs, and I have walked away from women that I thought I loved when I concluded that things would not work out. Those that left me, I got over it.

It would seem I don't worship anything.

 

[Davian]

I would be happy to.


Enjoying and loving is part of worship but doesn't in an of itself constitute worship. We love what we worship but just because we love something doesn't mean we worship it. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for worship. All that to say, I'm not saying that just because you enjoy something that means that it plays a god-like role in your life. On the other hand, just because you don't personalize any deity or use "god" language doesn't mean that there's nothing in your life that functions as divine.


I'm trying to spell this out for a sermon I'm preparing. A "god" is at least three things:

1. An ultimate source
2. A master
3. A savior

Source meaning the fountainhead of any good thing we seek. What's the ultimate source of pleasure, comfort, power, etc? Whatever is the ultimate source in your eyes is a god.

This would also be the ultimate source of pain, disgust, revulsion, etc? Those worms that burrow into the childrens eyes and blind them?

Master meaning that we obey the thing. What value, person, need, or impulse are you serving? All of us obey something. We obey our desires and values and behind those desires and values are created things or God himself. Whatever you ultimately obey is a god.

I see myself (in part) obeying thoughts based on biological imperatives (hunger, desire), cultural pressures (clothes, behaviour), empathy, and compassion. How does "god" explain any of that?

Savior meaning what or who you turn to for help in times of trouble and distress. Whatever you expect to save you at the end of the day is functioning as a god. When all else is falling apart in your life, what do you turn to and say: "well at least I've got this". That thing is functioning as a god.

Nothing is going to save me at the 'end of the day'. Tomorrow, when my body wakes, it will again, if all goes well, remember being me.

According to the Bible false worship is when you look to any created thing or false image of God as a source, master, and savior. True worship is finding these things in Jesus Christ.

"According to the bible..." is an appeal to authority fallacy. It is but once source on which one can base an opinion.

It may be coming together at this point. The problem with false worship is that it doesn't work. God is the only true source, only master worth obeying, and only true savior. Put anything else in His place and it will slowly kill you.

In 80 years or so. Why would I expect different?

Exactly. It's so easy to get caught up in the creature (money, job) and forget the creator.

What creator? Which one? What makes you think it is yours in particular?

Money does give these things to a limited extent but God is the one who ultimately gives them. If anyone is powerful it's because God has made him so. God gave the money.

Why is it that churches are always having to ask for money? Cannot their god provide?

God could take it away at any time. It's simply recognizing what the true source is. Money makes us feel powerful, free, and comfortable but it's too unreliable. It could be gone at any moment.

God does not sound reliable.

Find these things in Jesus and you'll never lose them. Even if you're broke you'll still have comfort, freedom, and power in Christ.

I have noted that those that proselytize do target those that are down and out.

So you promise comfort, freedom, and power, but they will still be broke?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

At this point our disagreement is purely semantic. This is what I mean when I say "worship".

Then your meaning of 'worship' renders the term somewhat meaningless. When you get up in the morning, are hungry, and you eat breakfast, you're not just fulfilling a need for nutrition, you're worshipping it. When you go see a movie you like, or perhaps watch a TV series you are a fan of, you're worshipping it. Everything becomes 'worship' by your meaning of the term, and everyone is worshipping everything all of the time. As you read this, and prepare your response, you're worshipping CF.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Enjoying and loving is part of worship but doesn't in an of itself constitute worship. We love what we worship but just because we love something doesn't mean we worship it. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for worship. All that to say, I'm not saying that just because you enjoy something that means that it plays a god-like role in your life. On the other hand, just because you don't personalize any deity or use "god" language doesn't mean that there's nothing in your life that functions as divine.

What is the function of the divine?

Edit: Nevermind, you address that below.

I'm trying to spell this out for a sermon I'm preparing. A "god" is at least three things:

1. An ultimate source
2. A master
3. A savior

Source meaning the fountainhead of any good thing we seek. What's the ultimate source of pleasure, comfort, power, etc? Whatever is the ultimate source in your eyes is a god.

Also presumably the ultimate source of evil as well.

Master meaning that we obey the thing. What value, person, need, or impulse are you serving? All of us obey something. We obey our desires and values and behind those desires and values are created things or God himself. Whatever you ultimately obey is a god.

Savior meaning what or who you turn to for help in times of trouble and distress. Whatever you expect to save you at the end of the day is functioning as a god. When all else is falling apart in your life, what do you turn to and say: "well at least I've got this". That thing is functioning as a god.

The particular God concept you are delineating here, and the functions of the divine that go along with it, is not something that all theists ascribe to. Some theists don't believe in a personal deity, and some that do, don't believe that this deity issues commands to be obeyed or saves people from anything.

According to the Bible false worship is when you look to any created thing or false image of God as a source, master, and savior. True worship is finding these things in Jesus Christ.

That's 'false worship' only if one accepts your account of the functions of the divine.

It may be coming together at this point. The problem with false worship is that it doesn't work. God is the only true source, only master worth obeying, and only true savior. Put anything else in His place and it will slowly kill you.

Worshipping the Christian God doesn't make one immune from death or the perils of this world.

Exactly. It's so easy to get caught up in the creature (money, job) and forget the creator. Money does give these things to a limited extent but God is the one who ultimately gives them. If anyone is powerful it's because God has made him so. God gave the money. God could take it away at any time. It's simply recognizing what the true source is. Money makes us feel powerful, free, and comfortable but it's too unreliable. It could be gone at any moment. Find these things in Jesus and you'll never lose them. Even if you're broke you'll still have comfort, freedom, and power in Christ.

Does that also mean that one should blame God for any evil that occurs in one's life? He is the "true source" after all.

 

[Davian]

I would be happy to.


Enjoying and loving is part of worship but doesn't in an of itself constitute worship. We love what we worship but just because we love something doesn't mean we worship it. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for worship. All that to say, I'm not saying that just because you enjoy something that means that it plays a god-like role in your life. On the other hand, just because you don't personalize any deity or use "god" language doesn't mean that there's nothing in your life that functions as divine.



I'm trying to spell this out for a sermon I'm preparing. A "god" is at least three things:

1. An ultimate source
2. A master
3. A savior

...

Can we see a copy of this sermon once you are done?

 

[brightlights]

Can we see a copy of this sermon once you are done?

Sure. I'll find some way to post it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would venture to say that there is something that you have an unyielding commitment to and faith in. You worship that thing.

That's an interesting attempt to define worship, but somehow it just does not seem like quite enough. It seems to me that worship carries with it a sense of abasement to the will of another, not just commitment and faith.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

That's an interesting attempt to define worship, but somehow it just does not seem like quite enough. It seems to me that worship carries with it a sense of abasement to the will of another, not just commitment and faith.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You're right. How I'm currently defining it is:

1. Whatever we credit as the ultimate source of good.
2. Whatever we obey.
3. Whatever we look to for help in time of need.

I think all three constitute worship.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Would God have any preference to me being a believer in a false god over being the skeptic unbeliever I am know?

To put it another way, would God (and I'm talking about the Christian God here) rather me believe in some kind of God over not believing in any God?

Probably no preference. The Christian God (the only one with whom I am familiar and therefore the only one of whom I can speak) requires an intimate relationship with Him and Him only. In this perspective, God is the only one (gods) that counts.

There is at least one – probably more – theories which claim God gives ‘credit’ to those who serve another god but conform to Christian standards – or something. C. S. Lewis implied this in some of his writings, but I’ve never been able to read the whole, complete version with footnotes and pictures. So I do not have enough information to offer an opinion. None of the others have been shown – to me – to have scriptural support. Therefore, I would not offer those to anyone as an ‘alternate’ path to God.

Not to mention, since you know about the Christian God, you cannot claim that exception. Essentially, you are saying “I know about this God fellow, but I’ll do the other anyway and then demand God give me credit for my service to – ‘Bob, the god of cookies’.”

Somewhat like marrying woman ‘A’ then maintaining an exclusive relationship with mistress ‘B’; then expecting ‘A’ to honor you for your loyalty.

Back to the answer: A disbeliever is a disbeliever is a disbeliever. There may be ‘levels’ in Hell, but frankly the best place is Hell is no match for the worst place in Heaven.

Considering the reaction from the gold calf, I'd say that if you are considering the god of the bible, believing in another god would be worse than believing in nothing at all.

Hello Sarah my dear.
I have to disagree, on these grounds: The Israelites were expected to know better. There were many other nations who worshipped idols. Some were obliterated, some were just ‘whupped’, and some were ignored. The anger God displayed over the Israelites making and worshiping a gold calf was intensified by betrayal. Sort of like you don’t care about man ‘A’ carrying on with some woman; however if man ‘B’ fools around with some woman, you are truly and rightfully angry, because man ‘B’ is your man and you have an exclusive relationship. (I do not know if that applies, but you get the drift.)

The OT god is a jealous god.

I don't know that Jesus said anything about the matter.

During the temptation by Satan (after the fasting) Jesus quotes the Decalogue as if He endorsed it. Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8.

As difficult as it may be for you to imagine, it is possible to not worship any gods.

Great line. Incorrect, as it ignores the basic truth behind what is being denied, but still a great line.

Everyone has ‘something’ which is the ultimate source of decisions, the ultimate moral compass, the final decider of fact and relevance. For Christians, it is the Lord God. Clearly that option does not appeal to atheists (go figure!) or those who simply do not believe and rely on God. For an atheist, the ‘ultimate etc’ is typically self. After all, who else is one going to trust? Of course, that is not always the case. Many of the old hard line Soviet Communists were atheists who made the Marxist Manifesto their ‘cause’ and guiding light, their reason for living and their compass for conduct.

No. Atheists do not – to my knowledge – have ‘idols’ or ‘shrines’ with their own picture or image. Nor do they sacrifice peacocks or babies to nothing. (In fact, when they hit themselves with a hammer, they don’t even yell ‘Nothing dangit!’.) But it is self who gets the loyalty and credit for life, typically.

So when someone denies … God, the Bible, Christianity, etc, are they worshipping their own opinion?

You’ve answered your own question, haven’t you? It is your own opinion that you honor and obey, is it not? No, that’s not singing hymns to yourself or bowing and scraping and such, but obedience is a form of worship.

By the way, you have every right to obey yourself. None of what I write is intended as ‘judgment’ in the sense of ‘you must please me’; it is just observations of what I see manifested.

…I hope God wouldn't hold it against me for joining "the wrong one". How was I supposed to know?

The Bible says the Universe and all its functions is mute testimony to the Creator God. In other words, when you say to God, “How was I supposed to know?” His answer will be something on the order of “I tried to tell you and you wouldn’t listen.” That is not a warm and fuzzy answer, but it is the only one that fits.

[Jealousy] … is such a human emotion. It's ridiculous that a supreme being of infinite power, wisdom, and love would get jealous over people believing in gods that supposedly don't even exist!

Two mistakes here. One is the ‘human emotion’ error. Mankind is created in God’s ‘image’. The concept of image in this instance is that of mental and emotional ability in kind, not in volume. So being created in God’s image, we have God’s emotions and independent thought; not the other way around.
Second, don’t think ‘jealousy’ in the same sense as when your brother got a larger portion of ice cream and you didn’t like it. Nor is it the act of screaming, spitting, throwing dishes or frying pans and such. This ‘jealousy’ is the expectation of exclusivity from a spouse.

And what's wrong with worshipping things other than God? … why is that bad?

God is uniquely entitled to worship as primary. Picture this: You get to meet the President of the United States. You are invited to a state reception at the White House. The time has arrived to start, the President, First Lady and entourage are waiting for you. It turns out you are still in the parking lot, talking cars with the driver. How happy will the President be about your choice?

Nor is it clear why non-belief should be punished at all. Various explanations are offered, but none are satisfying.

Sorry, Old Bird, but where in stone is carved that YOU have to agree with or authorize God’s decisions? It does not appear in your writ, sir. Just for the record, God doesn’t ask my opinion or blessing either.

This [God] would also be the ultimate source of pain, disgust, revulsion, etc? Those worms that burrow into the childrens eyes and blind them?

This reminds me of the idiot who bought a ladder, used it improperly, fell and injured himself and then sued the ladder manufacturer because the manufacturer made the ladder in such a way as to be used improperly. In other words, blame everyone and everything in order to avoid responsibility.

All pain, disgust and revulsion including those worms burrowing into the children’s eyes are the result of mankind not obeying God. It is humans that are responsible for all ills. Blaming God is a fashionable and superficial manner of avoiding responsibility.

"According to the bible..." is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Your comment is fallacy. You have made an implied claim to authority and presumed the Bible not sufficient to give advice or guidance. The Bible has been a recognized ‘authority’ on the Judeo-Christian tradition for quite some time now. You just don’t like it, which is certainly your right. Just don’t think your opinion changes history, or impresses anyone else.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Great line. Incorrect, as it ignores the basic truth behind what is being denied, but still a great line.

In addition to being a great line it has the advantage of being true.

Everyone has ‘something’ which is the ultimate source of decisions, the ultimate moral compass, the final decider of fact and relevance. For Christians, it is the Lord God. Clearly that option does not appeal to atheists (go figure!) or those who simply do not believe and rely on God. For an atheist, the ‘ultimate etc’ is typically self. After all, who else is one going to trust? Of course, that is not always the case. Many of the old hard line Soviet Communists were atheists who made the Marxist Manifesto their ‘cause’ and guiding light, their reason for living and their compass for conduct.

Sorry, but I don't worship myself, nor do I rely on just my 'self' (in the sense in which you use the word) for making decisions. It really is that simple.

No. Atheists do not – to my knowledge – have ‘idols’ or ‘shrines’ with their own picture or image. Nor do they sacrifice peacocks or babies to nothing. (In fact, when they hit themselves with a hammer, they don’t even yell ‘Nothing dangit!’.) But it is self who gets the loyalty and credit for life, typically.

They don't say 'Self dangit!' either.

You’ve answered your own question, haven’t you? It is your own opinion that you honor and obey, is it not? No, that’s not singing hymns to yourself or bowing and scraping and such, but obedience is a form of worship.

No, obedience is obedience, not worship. You obey laws in your jurisdiction I presume. Do you worship those laws?

Sorry, Old Bird, but where in stone is carved that YOU have to agree with or authorize God’s decisions? It does not appear in your writ, sir. Just for the record, God doesn’t ask my opinion or blessing either.

I don't have to agree with them, but I can criticise stupid decisions as stupid.

 

[Paradoxum]

That's pretty close to what I believe. I figure, it can't be that any one religion is "the right one" and I don't think it's possible that all are correct so for now, I say they're all wrong. But if at any point I become more convinced by any one of them, I hope God wouldn't hold it against me for joining "the wrong one". How was I supposed to know?

 

[Davian]

This reminds me of the idiot who bought a ladder, used it improperly, fell and injured himself and then sued the ladder manufacturer because the manufacturer made the ladder in such a way as to be used improperly. In other words, blame everyone and everything in order to avoid responsibility.

All pain, disgust and revulsion including those worms burrowing into the children’s eyes are the result of mankind not obeying God. It is humans that are responsible for all ills. Blaming God is a fashionable and superficial manner of avoiding responsibility.

Nice veiled insult. Is that a Christian thing, insulting those that do not agree with you?

If you think that I blame a character in a book for the problems in the world, you are mistaken.

Your comment is fallacy. You have made an implied claim to authority and presumed the Bible not sufficient to give advice or guidance.

No, I am pointing out the bible has not been demonstrated to be anything other than the work of men. What you or anyone uses it for is irrelevant to that point.

The Bible has been a recognized ‘authority’ on the Judeo-Christian tradition for quite some time now.

Your bible is the authority for Judaism? Tell me more, preacher.

You just don’t like it, which is certainly your right. Just don’t think your opinion changes history, or impresses anyone else.

It has certainly impressed you sufficiently to motivate you to preach empty rhetoric in a philosophy forum.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Sorry, but I don't worship myself, nor do I rely on just my 'self' (in the sense in which you use the word) for making decisions. It really is that simple.

Yes, you do. You are your own ultimate authority. You either don't want to be responsible for your decisions or you are studiously non self-aware.

They don't say 'Self dangit!' either.

Of course not! That would too close to accepting responsibility.

No, obedience is obedience, not worship. You obey laws in your jurisdiction I presume. Do you worship those laws?

Very clever. I don't worship gravity either, but I'm pretty scrupulous about that as well. However, the fact stands that you only obey yourself and what ever (traffic laws for instance) you deem appropriate.

I don't have to agree with them, but I can criticise stupid decisions as stupid.

And a stupid decision - according the law of Archaeopteryx - is a decision counter to the will of Archaeopteryx. But you don't worship yourself. No. Of course not.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, you do. You are your own ultimate authority. You either don't want to be responsible for your decisions or you are studiously non self-aware.
Of course not! That would too close to accepting responsibility.
Very clever. I don't worship gravity either, but I'm pretty scrupulous about that as well. However, the fact stands that you only obey yourself and what ever (traffic laws for instance) you deem appropriate.
And a stupid decision - according the law of Archaeopteryx - is a decision counter to the will of Archaeopteryx. But you don't worship yourself. No. Of course not.

Wow!

Whatever happened to the whole; log in your own eye thing?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Nice veiled insult. Is that a Christian thing, insulting those that do not agree with you?

Veiled? Sorry it was hard for you to spot. Nor was it 'insult'; it is simply an observation of how many atheists tend to deny any responsibility for their decisions or actions. Except when being praised, of course. I presume that is an atheist thing, labeling any questioning of your opinions as 'insult'?

If you think that I blame a character in a book for the problems in the world, you are mistaken.

Who do you blame, then? What is the root cause of worldly problems then?

No, I am pointing out the bible has not been demonstrated to be anything other than the work of men. What you or anyone uses it for is irrelevant to that point.

It has been demonstrated to be Divinely Inspired as the message of God to humanity. If you don't 'get' that, it is your problem and lack, not anyone else's. Your rejection is irrelevant.

Your bible is the authority for Judaism? Tell me more, preacher.

Ah. So historical ignorance presents. Fine. The portion of the Bible called "Old Testament" is what the Jewish religion calls the 'Tanach'. It contains the Torah, History and Prophets which comprise the elements of the Jewish religion. (Not to be confused with non-religious 'social' Jews.)

The Torah contains the Laws and regulatory rules of the ancient nation of Israel and the origin of the nation of Israel.

The History is the record of the Judges and Kings of ancient Israel.

The Prophets record the pronouncements and historical accounts of various prophets; which includes most of the problems Israel underwent in the ancient period.

Now you know.

It has certainly impressed you sufficiently to motivate you to preach empty rhetoric in a philosophy forum.

Actually, you did impress me. But only in a negative way. If my rhetoric is 'empty' it is only as you lack the ability to comprehend reality.