Does God Suffer From Vanity?

Bsmeter2,

“If our physical reality is based only on mental perception, then any idea of what is behind that perception is a useless conjecture at this point”.

IF physical reality it is based on perception derived from conjecture, then what is the status of speculation of the spiritual, theological or divine? If we can doubt the physical, can’t we doubt the mental? Can something non-physical be capable of thought?

Questions of metaphysics and epistemology are two monumental tangents, BS. But they are certainly more interesting.

Grant .

 

Since the Christian God seems to be the foundation of this thread, what does it mean to worship God? What does it entail?

 

For the purposes of this thread, it need not be the "Christian God," as per your reference. All religions have their own way of worshipping their God. Since I do not partake, perhaps some of the more religious among us would like to chime in.

 

I believe that "agnostic" is a politically correct way of saying atheist. Essentially, both the agnostic and the atheist go about their lives in much the same way, as I see it. They do not believe in a God and, therefore, they do not worship Him. However, if God were to present Himself in no uncertain terms to both the agnostic and the atheist, then I am sure that they would both respond in much the same way. Only a fool would ignore incontrovertible proof of a deity if such evidence were squarely presented. However, God, working in that mysterious way that He seems to favor, chooses not to present Himself in such a manner. Therefore, both the agnostic and the atheist continue living their lives in much the same manner for all intents and purposes.

 

Priceless.

 

Atheists disbelieve in God, they believe in non God. They practice belief in non God. They are very certain God does not exist, because they seek proof via empirical measures, and view those who believe in God in a negative light. They have blind faith in empiricism above all else, despite secretly knowing that the tools of empricism are deeply limited and flawed.

Agnostics on the other hand, have no opinion one way or the other, having concluded there is no way they know of to determine God or non God. They are neutral on the issue.

Agnostics are not angry at God nor the concept of God, nor are they angry at theists who believe in God, they don't really care....most failed theists that I have come across in these forums however who identify as atheists, certainly appear quite angry and have a negative opinion toward those theists who have not failed...thinking them inferior in one way or another because of their theism.

 

This is one of the sentiments that make me wonder what worship is or is thought to be. If God (Christian) revealed itself in an incontrovertible manner, yet salvation is a function of faith according to the writing ascribed to the Judeo-Christian God, how would one be "saved?" You can't believe in something you know to be a fact. A fact would be a fact.

Would then worship countermand faith? What would worship entail? Obedience? It doesn't appear that mankind was designed to perfectly obey. As it says, "none are righteous, no not one."

Not sure what worship is in the context of this discussion, but I don't see in the bible where worship either has equal or superior footing to faith. That's why I think it would be hard to say that God is vain in the sense of the type of vanity a petulant child-king might have. According to the bible, the way to "please" God is to have faith. (The natural question is, "where does faith come from?) I put please in quotes because if we draw our notion of worship from classical pagan imagery of worship, we see a picture of doing something or some act which is meant to appease a diety with failure resulting in an angry reaction from that diety.

We have to find a way to make it clear that having faith is a concious act of the will. It doesn't appear so since you cannot make yourself believe something you know to be false. Without the determination that faith is a conscious act of the will, it doesn't appear that one can appease God and therefore feed into a vanity.

But it all might come down to the definition of worship.

 

Fact: There are two types of atheist.

A 'Strong Atheist' believes there is no God.
A 'Weak Atheist' does not believe in God.


Categorizing <b>all</b> atheists as belonging to the former category isn't even a theological mistake, but a simple linguistic one. You're making up new definitions for words again, because nothing makes your day quite like insisting that a cow is a horse, and then sitting back to watch others get frustrated as they try to make you 'understand' your (deliberate) mistake.

Can't you come up with any <b>fresh</b> ways to troll?
Is your 'winning by losing' tactic really <i>all</i> you have?

 

Curious distinction, given most classical representations of pagan worship descend directly from christian scholars, many of them long after the practices themselves ceased to exist.

Not to mention this singular construct is the entire basis of christianity, and all mainstream religions-you dont worship, you are punished-not by god, but by gods representatives, his hitmen, clergy and their accolyites.

There is no reason to think many pagan religions , particularly early celtic & scandanavian (druidic variants ) varieties were not entirely wholistic in their approach.

 

Ummm... sorry to burst your bubble, but God doesn't exist. There is no 'God'. Religion is just a holdover from pre-modern times and will be gone within 500 - 1000 years.

Hope that helps.

Nik