Thiests - Assuming God exists, why should we worship him?

[tackattack]

---

1. Luckily most of Christianity believes in the trinity therefore Jesus of Nazerath isn't God the Father, and therefore not an issue. However if you're arguing if Jesus knew that he would die and then return to the Father, then yes he did.
2. Once again using only the material 5 senses is limiting the world to a materialistic view, which isn't mine. Love is more that what you can see, it's what you can't. It's intuitive and instinctual. No one taught you or I what love is or how to love, it's learned, not in our nature. Believe in love at first site? Love is perceived becuase of some kind of input or event, yes I agree, but if love were only based off seeing the object of your love or talking to them, how could you ever long or love someone over a distance? I think you're trying to overly-mechanize love.
3. It's not like a members only jacket , it's available to everyone. It's just like any relationship or covenant, it has 2 sides. Therefore by the strictest definition it's not unconditional, it has at least the condition of acceptance.
4. I'm glad that 99.9% of the Earth won't kill us. Does that make the Earth an anomally? What do you think is the reason for the disparity that 99.9% of the Universe would destroy life but the very being that ponder life have life and live there?
5. Yep those are horrible, luckily Jesus was the fufillment of the OT. Not to abolish it, but to teach us the true meaning of the laws and turn laws of condemnations into the path to life.

A complete response as ever Tack but hardly convincing
1. So we agree there was no sacrifice then, so why did you say there was?
2. Hardly, but I don't mystify it either. Stop the physical processes and love stops. Just look at the unfortunate cases of brain injury where husbands personalities have changed and the love between 2 devoted people dies. If love is immaterial it should survive, and this argument carries as much weight as substance dualism (which to me just seems like casusistry). You cannot name one example in reality where love exists outside of a physical process, except by begging the question on a god/s and putting that to the heart of you premises.
3. Quite so. And how Christians aren't happy until we believe it too. But still considering this is a truth claim it is remarkable that a god cannot provide enough evidence to move say a Hindu to atheism let alone christianity. The simplest explanation is that religions are natural, cultural phenomena.
4. In short no. It makes Earth part of a natural, material world. The processes which made earth are observed and support the theory; as yet the best explanation we have, needing no additional comments, but more research. You have avoided the question around why maroon us on this planet, and that needs an explanation.
5. The theological backing for that statement is beyond my understanding so I am going to plead ignorance. My initial sense of it is, it feels like spin. But then again that seems to be theologies purpose.
6. You did not counter the logical contradiction of worship.

---

1-Then you missed my point I said God and Jesus are not the same entities, and there was a sacrifice. The fact that he knew about it does not limit his free actions as expressed by his doubt in the Garden nor does it lessen his sacrifice.
2-And I don’t deny human love is not some mystical immaterial tangible other than a reaction to stimuli interpreted by the Brain. My point was the stimuli is being interpreted by our mental physical processes doesn’t force the fact that we have to see the stimuli. You said that every sense of love we have is backed by our emotions and which is based out of our physical cognitive processes, which I don’t deny. However you then go on to assume that only physical/material inputs are required for a response, which isn’t the case. You can “feel” that someone loves you though you’re miles away and it can “warm your heart”. It doesn’t require any more than an abstract thought or idea to change your emotional state. That being said as long as the input event is realistically evaluated, it’s a vaid emotion response from reality.
3-Well you’re entitled to believe whatever you like, I’m not here to convert or convince you. I agree that religions are cultural phenomenon, but they’re not about evidence. Religion exists because people question and don’t understand their origins, purpose and predicaments. It’s either a methodology to explain a real phenomenon, a social control, or personal rationalization or some mix of them all.
4-My intent wasn’t to avoid anything. I don’t know God’s plan, but I see that we’re all here to learn grow and develop into something better. I don’t see us as marooned, just limited by our understanding. If our purpose is to learn and grow, what a vast area of expansion God’s given us to grow into hunh
5-I assure you I don’t have the time nor energies to spend spinning, nor is that a theologians purpose. Many scriptures talk about taking the “letter of the Law” further to intention. The Law was also a tool for condemnation which is opposed to Jesus’ teachings of God’s Grace.
6-You’re correct I missed it in my rush I apologize. You stated :
“we can't both have freewill and there be a god axiomatically worthy of worship, becuase we have to yield our freewill to perform the worship. Unless you are to argue that freewill is active only to the point at which you have decided to come to a god, after that you have to give up freewill. Thus you would argue that we don't have freewill at least in matters of moral autonomy.”
I don’t see a contradiction you don’t have to give up your free will to worship God, it’s an act of free will to worship God or to do your own thing. Perhaps you could rephrase because I don’t see a contradiction between free will and worship.

---

1-I would say he's homicidal, but where you see God acting to kill people I see nature and people killing people.

I would agree that he would be a homicidal maniac. But what does the second part of your response have to do with anything? It was your deity who directly killed people when he supposedly flooded the planet. It was also your deity who directly killed the first born child of everyone in town when the Pharoah refused to free the Hebrews. These were not acts of "nature".

2-poor analogy, the problem with it is that he does give answers to those who listen, and he does heal those who show faith, not beg

No, it's a perfect analogy. Many of the faithful pray for their sick children to be cured. And many of these children die. No cure. No response. No reason is ever given. And the nonsensical "he does give answers to those who listen" is nothing but a meaningless platitude. If your deity truly exists he is a lousy communicator.

3-It would definately make me question and distrust , but I would stil love him, he's my father.

Then why don't you question and distrust "God"?

4- See 4 from the above quote

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

---

1- The second sentence was because you seem to be under the impression that I’m a literalist and attribute lightning to the finger of God. As for the rest I’m not aware of any worldwide flood ever happening. Correct those weren’t acts of nature they here parable.
2- And tons of children die of parental neglect without the God told me excuse. God isn’t an excuse not to think and reason, but I agree that in practice it happens less frequently than it should. As for the rest communication is a 2 way street.
3- I do question and distrust my faith in God, quite frequently.
4- I was referring to your comments about the things that exist that are in opposition to life and referred you to my answer 4 from the above quote.