Why Does God Need So Much Praise?

[Esquilax]

I will never understand how you christians keep mistaking "you don't know what you're talking about," for a complete and cogent rebuttal on its own.  

So, you think Rhondazvous was making even a remotely coherent connection between the observation and the conclusion? An then the verse about God's ultimate (future) victory over Satan as a support? It is fine (even expected) that most atheists don't know much about Christianity. But to start a thread, which Rhondazvous does quite often, with off-the-wall observations and conclusions that don't follow clearly falls under the "you don't know what you're talking about".

What I think is that if your position is that someone is wrong, that you actually put in the minimal effort to make that argument, rather than simply condescending to them loftily, asserting that the argument exists, and then expecting that to take the place of an attempt at justification. I also think that you, along with a number of other christians on this board, have a tendency of mistaking sneering mockery for cogent refutation. I think that there's a difference between braying "out of context!" and "you're ignorant of christianity!", and actually showing why that is.

You don't get to just leap to the contrapositive here, because my response to you had nothing at all to do with Rhonda's point, and everything to do with the fact that your response to it was unnecessarily hostile, yet contained not a shred of actual argumentation. If you think someone is wrong, that's one thing, but I don't understand for a moment why you raced to dismiss them out of hand, rather than even attempting to correct what you perceive to be an error. Leaving aside that you aren't making your position seem an ounce more valid by just saying "you don't understand christianity," if you actually believe that this is true, then you have a perfect opportunity for outreach that you've squandered in favor of making yourself feel better at the idea that someone would dare to disagree with you.

Do you have a reason for believing Rhonda is wrong or not? If so, why didn't you present it? If not, why do you disagree at all?

[SteveII]

So, you think Rhondazvous was making even a remotely coherent connection between the observation and the conclusion? An then the verse about God's ultimate (future) victory over Satan as a support? It is fine (even expected) that most atheists don't know much about Christianity. But to start a thread, which Rhondazvous does quite often, with off-the-wall observations and conclusions that don't follow clearly falls under the "you don't know what you're talking about".

What I think is that if your position is that someone is wrong, that you actually put in the minimal effort to make that argument, rather than simply condescending to them loftily, asserting that the argument exists, and then expecting that to take the place of an attempt at justification. I also think that you, along with a number of other christians on this board, have a tendency of mistaking sneering mockery for cogent refutation. I think that there's a difference between braying "out of context!" and "you're ignorant of christianity!", and actually showing why that is.

You don't get to just leap to the contrapositive here, because my response to you had nothing at all to do with Rhonda's point, and everything to do with the fact that your response to it was unnecessarily hostile, yet contained not a shred of actual argumentation. If you think someone is wrong, that's one thing, but I don't understand for a moment why you raced to dismiss them out of hand, rather than even attempting to correct what you perceive to be an error. Leaving aside that you aren't making your position seem an ounce more valid by just saying "you don't understand christianity," if you actually believe that this is true, then you have a perfect opportunity for outreach that you've squandered in favor of making yourself feel better at the idea that someone would dare to disagree with you.

Do you have a reason for believing Rhonda is wrong or not? If so, why didn't you present it? If not, why do you disagree at all?

I'm sorry. I was wrong to to be condescending and hostile. Sorry Rhonda. 

For any of the myriad examples that you can come up with where "christians" behaved badly or did bad things in the name of "christianity", you cannot then make inferences as to the nature of God or what the Bible teaches. Badly is defined as something clearly contrary to the teachings of Christ and the other NT authors.  


Whenever you use a verse to justify a conclusion. Make sure you read the surrounding paragraph and, even better, to also read a quick commentary on the verse so you get the references and the context you may miss without knowing the related passages/teachings/people/concepts. Biblehub has a bunch of them.

[Fake Messiah]

Why Does God Need So Much Praise? Well it's like Dan Barker once explained, isn't it: “Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, ‘yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down.... Amen!’ If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It reminds me of the passages I read in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (Sagan and Druyan), in which they described the way that an inferior-ranked chimp will present his rump to a dominant Alpha Male as a sign of submission.

Ironically, the people who prostrate themselves in this way are the quickest to deny our relationship with the chimpanzees.

People pray with their eyes down so that God won't snatch their eyes out if they look up.

http://islamcomicbook.com/12.htm

https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/prayin...up=7206855

http://www.christianpost.com/news/washin...se-105434/

[Rhondazvous]

I'm sorry. I was wrong to to be condescending and hostile. Sorry Rhonda. 

For any of the myriad examples that you can come up with where "christians" behaved badly or did bad things in the name of "christianity", you cannot then make inferences as to the nature of God or what the Bible teaches. Badly is defined as something clearly contrary to the teachings of Christ and the other NT authors.  


Whenever you use a verse to justify a conclusion. Make sure you read the surrounding paragraph and, even better, to also read a quick commentary on the verse so you get the references and the context you may miss without knowing the related passages/teachings/people/concepts. Biblehub has a bunch of them.

I understand the point you are making, Steve. Actually, you've taken the thread off on a tangent, and perhaps that is my fault for including the part about Hypatia's gruesome murder. My purpose in including the story itself was to show how fragile Christians and the bible make god's glory seem. Why do humans have to dumb down to avoid taking glory from god? Why does god require so much praise and worship?

Even when I was a Christian, I did not understand this. In my view, if I shone as bright as a million suns at mid day on the summer solstice, I could in no wise diminish the glory of the one who supposedly created the sun. I even heard one Christian speaker say that all this emphasis on god's glory is more about what's good for the Christian music industry than what god requires.

[Whateverist]

Quick, let's steal their wallets!

Well, puts me in mind of something else entirely.

Surely not in God's house.  What were you thinking of?

[dyresand]

god of the bible is shallow and the writers wrote him up to be a psychopath with attention problems

[SteveII]

I understand the point you are making, Steve. Actually, you've taken the thread off on a tangent, and perhaps that is my fault for including the part about Hypatia's gruesome murder.  My purpose in including the story itself was to show how fragile Christians and the bible make god's glory seem. Why do  humans have to dumb down to avoid taking glory from god?  Why does god require so much praise and worship?

Even when I was a Christian, I did not understand this. In my view, if I shone as bright as a million suns at mid day on the summer solstice, I could in no wise diminish the glory of the one who supposedly created the sun. I even heard one Christian speaker say that all this emphasis on god's glory is more about what's good for the Christian music industry than what god requires.

 
That is not what you said. From the OP: 

It drives you to violent jealousy to see your creation going about their business, carrying on their lives with no thought of you, while you have no other business than to watch them and worry about what they do. If they don’t remind you of how wonderful you are, you might forget or even doubt it. So you need praise, incessant and passionate from all your creatures. Everything they do must be done for your glory, and yours alone. You go into a hissy fit if anyone else gets any attention.

Wouldn’t you just loathe somebody like Hypatia? Wouldn’t you love it when your faithful grasshoppers are eager to kill to protect your glory—your fragile, precarious glory?

So wherever you get your data to draw your conclusions about the nature/character of God, it is not correct. If you want to know more about praising God, start here: https://www.guideposts.org/faith-in-dail...-of-praise

[Rhondazvous]

I understand the point you are making, Steve. Actually, you've taken the thread off on a tangent, and perhaps that is my fault for including the part about Hypatia's gruesome murder.  My purpose in including the story itself was to show how fragile Christians and the bible make god's glory seem. Why do  humans have to dumb down to avoid taking glory from god?  Why does god require so much praise and worship?

Even when I was a Christian, I did not understand this. In my view, if I shone as bright as a million suns at mid day on the summer solstice, I could in no wise diminish the glory of the one who supposedly created the sun. I even heard one Christian speaker say that all this emphasis on god's glory is more about what's good for the Christian music industry than what god requires.

 
That is not what you said. From the OP: 

It drives you to violent jealousy to see your creation going about their business, carrying on their lives with no thought of you, while you have no other business than to watch them and worry about what they do. If they don’t remind you of how wonderful you are, you might forget or even doubt it. So you need praise, incessant and passionate from all your creatures. Everything they do must be done for your glory, and yours alone. You go into a hissy fit if anyone else gets any attention.

Wouldn’t you just loathe somebody like Hypatia? Wouldn’t you love it when your faithful grasshoppers are eager to kill to protect your glory—your fragile, precarious glory?

So wherever you get your data to draw your conclusions about the nature/character of God, it is not correct. If you want to know more about praising God, start here: https://www.guideposts.org/faith-in-dail...-of-praise

How is what I said in this post different from what I said in the op? Are you saying that the church and the bible itself do not present god as a violently jealous deity who craves praise and worship? You have left yourself with the task of convincing the majority of readers that they don’t know what they were reading.

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

An appeal to the context does not change the meaning of this verse.
In the 24th chapter of 2 Samuel god got angry and killed 70,000 men because David held a census to see how many fighting men they had. Christian apologist explain that the reason god was angry was because by holding the census, David betrayed a lack of faith in god. In other words god wanted the glory for himself and not for the number of men David had.

[robvalue]

If God was a man, Christians would call him the most evil man that ever lived.

Oh, except he was a man. Just, a different one or something.

But since he's not a man, he is held to a lower standard of accountability, or none at all. (?)