Agnostic.com

14 28

LINK Why Would A God Need to be Worshipped? (or is God a Karen?) - YouTube

The bible says over and over again that God is jealous while also telling us not to be jealous. It also tells us to be meek while also asking us to worship him.
Why is there a difference? Why would the writers of the bible focus on this aspect so much?

HippieChick58 9 Mar 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

It's a con man bs that wants to control every mind in the world. We are proof that the bs doesn't work and some of us can think for our selfs.

3

Gods are inventions of mankind's fears. Their characteristics are self-contradictory.

3

Gawd is a Karen. Entitled, jealous, raging, vengeful

I forgot to add passive aggressive af

4

Karen's are a blight on humanity

bobwjr Level 10 Mar 21, 2022
4

IMO, those who create gods want to be worshipped.

3

How something non existent demand anything?

4

Beyond other replies so far, why would worshiping require words like "amen" and "holynuyear" with moaning and your hands up in the air, etc. Why would worshiping require running around the building babbling gibberish? My now dead religious friend used to tell me that god is the big spark and we are all little sparks. So, you can "worship" this forever and ever. OK, then electrocute me!

4

Seriously, Karen? The Bible and its Abrahamic brothers, Torah and Koran were written by men to justify tribalism and patriarchy. Women were defined as evil second class creatures meant to serve men. I’m pretty sure any Karen would have been killed in some awful way. Men murder women because of jealousy on a daily basis. Why wouldn’t they put that in their big book of why men should rule the world?

Is this another way to demonize women and somehow blame them for the evil that is religion when they had no power over it?

5

Narcissistic behavior shouldn't be given attention nor rewarded. Not a great example of a "perfect" god, that's for sure! No wonder we have Karens and Kens.

5

Most "Christian" religions are basically narcissistic.

5

That is how humans perceived a god should be when humans created one in their imagination.

Replace “human” with “god-creator”

@yvilletom Humans ARE god creators.

@jlynn37 Are you a human?

3

What is missing in all of these explanations is the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. What need would such a being have from jealousy? They would already know the true intent of anyone's heart and mind. They would be with an individual at all times in all circumstances, and they would have the power to remind the individual if they were slipping for their designated direction.

@PapPap - A film is predetermined and will turn out the same way every time it is viewed. Free will does not apply because the film is already created and cannot be changed no matter how many times it is viewed. Likewise, if God being omniscient already knows how someone's life will turn out (because God created it that way) what need or reason does God have for jealousy? We could also argue that God's omniscience contradicts the concept of free will. If God already knows how an individual's life will turn out, are they truly able to make free choices? This is the result God would have created for them after all. Is it actually possible to surprise an omniscient being?

11

Explained…….

Sometimes a simple meme is the only way to answer these complex questions😏.

1

This is a problem only for literalists.

The more troubling question would be… why on earth would an atheist ever be a literalist?

skado Level 9 Mar 20, 2022

The answer would be because a number of believers ready to condemn the athiest both in this life and the next tell us their scriptures are to be taken literally. If a believer says the Bible is to be taken literally, why shouldn't the athiest believe them - at least while conversing with these believers.

@RussRAB
Why would the atheist choose to believe the literalist perspective but reject the existence of the believers’ god? If he could reject one he could reject both. If the atheist sides with science instead of with the believer regarding the existence, why would he then side with the believer regarding god’s nature?

@skado - I believe I need to back up to explain, and that admit that I misspoke. The atheist does reject both the believer's God and his literalist interpretation of scripture as well as the scriptures themselves. He adopts the literal interpretation of the Bible as stated by the believer more as a hypothetical or hypothesis to agrue against the literalist perspective. It is accepting the premise as provided by the believer to demonstrate how the literalist perspective falls apart or says something contrary to what the believer claims to believe. As an atheist, he doesn't believe any of it.

@RussRAB
Yes, I think that's well stated. But the atheist goes even further. He then assumes he has "not believed any of it" when in fact he has heard only part of it. That is to say, that he has also taken the believer's word that the literal interpretation is the only one there is. So in that regard, the atheist has still allowed the believer to frame the discussion. Religious literalism isn't the whole of religion, or even its defining feature. It's the naive end of the continuum.

@skado - I believe it depends on the reason for the discussion. If it is a debate, then would it be sensible to approach a debate with a literalist without acknowledging that this is the perspective of the other person and arguing within that perspective? Literal interpretations of the Bible are also more easily defeated because the Bible does contradict itself. Other believers may recognize this to be the case and make accomodations. Making accomodations, however, brings up a whole other issue of why ignore one directive while adhering to another faithfully. Believers have their own set of arguments amoung themselves over these kinds of issues.

@RussRAB
Sure. I’m not thinking so much in terms of winning debates as just what people go home with in their heads after the dust settles.

@skado Because the none literal view is often as deviant and dangerous as the literal, and contains many of the same errors, so there is little point in separating the two.

All of the evils of religion come from the culture it generates the. The existence of a purely deist god, or not, would have, and does have, no effect on the world at all and is of little interest to anyone.

V. Putin who probably is not a literal Christian, according to many who know him, is still using the uniting of the Orthodox church as one of his major excuses, to shell buildings with children in them, among lots of other things. The literal or none literal view of god, is largely beside the point, since addopting religion for most, even if they do not have a literal belief in god, effectively makes a god out of tradition, and tradition is just as cruel, mindless and unjustified in its assumptions as a literal god. There is no reason therefore, except on very rare occasions for atheists/agnostics to make any distinction between the two, and most of the time it is better not to.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:656821
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.