The utility of God

Whether I am reading the OT or the NT, it always strikes me that God, if He, She or It exists, was more a servant to man than man a servant of God. For I can see the benefit that a man would get from God’s favor, but no one could tell me why a god would need prayer, praise, faith etc, from man. Even if Humanity had been righteous from the start, what is that to a god? I guess it is clear that one would have to wait for that Day of Judgment.

But put aside all the logic in the back of your mind. Have you not wondered if maybe God is not merely a more sublime Santa Claus? That those who believe in “Him” have an agenda and that their actions are conditioned by an expectation for reward? What if there was no Hell for the wicked or Heaven for the faithful servants of God, would any of these servants still believe, or is their belief attached to the utility of God?

Think about it. Early on, God is believed as an agent, a force, in this world and for this world. Your conduct towards God affected this life, either good or bad, not in some fate after death. This is a narrative apt for a conquering tribe. When the victories turn into defeats the narration changes accordingly. A promise is made for a return to glory, still in this life, in this world, by a chosen prince. Still more defeats. What then? One of the appointed princes brings forth the good news that although there are little to be happy about, this is not the only life there is. This is complicated and not all accept it in his religion, but nonetheless true. And it is then, not now that the scales are balanced by God. What a strike of genius! For one can verify God’s favor with his own eyes in this world, but who knows anything of the next?

But whether now or then people still believe in God conditionally. It serves one. It gives one peace. It is a source of optimism. The entire Universe is His and the Next life too. We suffer, yet the Creator shall reward our continued endurance. This is all noble, but is is too good to be true? Too noble of a god? Is it just a tale we tell our selves that we may sleep when we suffer dearly in the flesh?

I am not saying:“God does not exist”, but what if God existed for His own sake rather than ours? What if there was no Heaven and no Hell, would that mean, by some necessity that God also does not exist? Or is it possible that God could exist, apart from Heaven and Hell, apart from any rewards or punishment, apart from any utility to the suffering man or woman or child? Would you believe in a God like that?

For some people I think God does serve that purpose. But that doesn’t make God “merely” that.

Someone may wish there was a God so that they would get a reward. Someone may hope that there isn’t so that they don’t get punished. The one who wishes there was a God must believe that there is not or she would not need to wish. The one who hopes that there is no God must believe that there is or he would have no need to hope.

For the theocentric believer, there is just God. Heaven and Hell are states of being in relation to God.
We know this because that’s the way it is now. It says in the Bible,
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him.”

If that were the case then we would not actually be believing what we are telling ourselves.

That kind of dichotomous thinking breaks down in God’s presence.

Not at all.

The reward is God Himself. The punishment is God’s absence.

Jesus taught that we should deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him. That doesn’t sound like the religion you are imagining. What you describe in the first instance is probably more common, in the second instance, it is an indifferent god. What Jesus calls for is simultaneously more costly, more authentic and more joyous.

It seems to be something of a symbiotic relationship. Humans do His will so that He might do theirs.

One of the unique characteristics of the Abrahamic God, as distinct from the pagan deities that preceded Him, is that He never stated a specific purpose for our existence. Other myths held that humans were created for the sake of doing the tasks that the gods didn’t want to do, or for some other menial purpose.

I don’t think it’s possible to really make that judgment. It certainly seems plausible, but people can be surprising. They do things for myriad reasons, and often ones that are unexpected.

Deists do.

Then maybe God does not have a linear way of thinking about creation. In human terms something is created only when a specific purpose is required, we need something out of what we create and thus we create it. Linear thinking. Would it be far of a stretch to believe that God, with the power to do anything conceivable, does not share our conception of linear creation? Maybe we were created merely to see what could be done, a test of some absolute power. Or perhaps, as Karl Barth supported, God is merely full of some ‘overflowing love’ and the world is a mere expression of God’s love. Even further, it could be that God’s nature is merely one of compassion: humanity is one step closer to God than the ambient physical realm, God wanted the natural realm to be closer to himself for it’s sake (running with this Jesus was God’s attempt to bring humans one step closer to God). Or maybe God is just fickle? There is obviously do definite answer, but the answer that God createated us for something to do has some competition.

I do… :wink:

Although common Judeo-Christian values hold that the good go to heaven and the bad go to hell, everyone who follows Jesus gets an eternal pat on the back, there are some significant problems raised here. For one, not all religions that have a conception of God hold this as true: some hold that the afterlife is connected only to this life through the actions you will perform, so the only affects of the actions in this life will be felt in your next life… which you probably won’t have to worry about now (karma). OR God does not respond to mere human action to dictate election into heaven, so the actions you perform have no reprocussions in the afterlife par se (unconditional election). Furthermore there are those who hold in reincarnation but still hold a conception of the divine prescence (Mahayanan Buddhism). Not everyone who holds God in their life feels this need to act or be punished.

But staying to traditional western religion, I think that the heaven is meant more to be a side-reward for acting righteously and hell is merely an additional punishment for living a life of sin. The idea behind this is that man’s motivation should be to live to the standard of action God has set forth before us, if you follow this path then you have achieved what God willed and that is your reward… as a bonus you get eternal salvation. As well, the punishment for sin is the knowledge that you have not lived how God has deemed… you also happen to burn for all eternity. The goal was traditionally not to get into heaven/avoid hell, but for the righteous action of living God’s well… heaven just came as a conceptional way to euclidate this point.

Personally I feel that the whole heaven/hell imagry came to be out of a necessity to illustrate what staying or straying God’s path would end up being. Not so much as physical places where you will end up for eternity, but bed-time stories that became accepted as truth.

I think this narrative may be just that, a narrative. Although ‘possible’ I suppose, I do not believe that this is how the conception of the afterlife came to be. Interesting idea though, given me something to think about.

The solution to existential angst is to flee to religion. Actually, not an uncommon idea.

I don’t think people believe in God conditionally, if anything what you are saying is almost that people believe in God out of necessity. In order for the pains of this world to be endurable we must believe it serves a higher purpose. If we survive this turmoil and still look good we pass the test and get the golden ticket in. I think this is a fairly human-centric view of God, removing the faith element in it’s entirety. While God does provide those things it doesn’t necessarily mean that is why people believe in God. People may believe in God regardless of the benefits, belieiving in God because you feel that is how the world is and accepting his part in the world NOT because of the fringe eternal benefits.

I don’t think a lack of heaven and hell would negate God’s exitsence, it is more an aspect of God himself. A lack of God would seem to negate heaven and hell, but not the other way around.

Can God exist without compassion? Sure, remember the mechanical God Netwon and Locke conceived of? I am glad I don’t believe in this though, I think a conception of God without compassion would in no way be accurate.

I wouldn’t. Ever. This God is not the God I believe in, nor can I think how it would come to pass.

To me the way human religions portray their God makes the god an abusive creature. But that serves a purpose. It seems to me the origin of religions began so that leaders of socety could give answers and control the people. Still works.

I can’t pray to any god. I find the gods man has created petty,criminal and against society.

If a person locked another person in a dark basement forever we would call it abuse.

If a leader made people worship him/her we would condemn that leader.

If a person makes threats and blackmails another into submission that is illegal.

If a person leads a group to attack another group just because they are different we condemn that act.
So why is it Ok for a god to do these things.
By all of civilizations standards Gods, no matter the goodness they promise, are egotistical petty criminals.

I am supposed to follow? Not according to ethics. If I did I would be an accomplice to criminal acts.

I believe that there is a superior being with a vested interest in us but, Humanity has warped this creature all out of whack.

Why would an omnipotent being have human ego?That makes no sense

Since most religions agree that one god created humanity,Why would this creature want to turn man against man. I can’t see an omnipotent being kicking back with popcorn and enjoying the action. That sort of behavior would be human ego. An omnipotent creature would not have need of such a thing.

If you are omnipotent Why would you ever need to have an ego that requires worship and why would you demean those that you created? I can’t see us being created just so that some gods can have their ego massaged by having followers.

If there is a creator it would make more sense that it would create a child species in hopes that the species becomes better than it or at least its equal.

If we are going to assign human attributes to a superior creature I can only see it that way. Any selfish ego driven creature is not going to be superior nor is it omnipotent. If we detest such behaviors in our fellow man why would we love it in a god?

A punishment reward system makes sense to an extent for we must learn. But an eternal horrific punishment? That is just soo abusive of power it reeks. If we would condemn ourselves for such actions. Why condone it in another creature?

The utility of Gods has been warped way out of kilter. It sort of reminds me of mass Stockholm syndrome. Competing religions? What is this world, a massive WWF wrestling ring for some God’s pleasure?

Gods are called Father/Mother. If your parents made you worship them, punished you with horrific pain, threatened and blackmailed you, Would you Love them? Hell no! But we are supposed to love a God that does this?

“If a person”… not exactly on the same level as God. You are demeaning the acts God has done to human standards.

God didn’t lock anyone in a room, he created that person, the room, and everything outside this room that the person is locked away from. Also, without any conception of being on the outside and the only means of preventing one from leaving is their own technological limitations it isn’t really locked.

God makes no one worship him, God has set out a path for people to follow but in no way physically or mentally forces them to do so. Any time some pushy preacher tries to ‘encourage’ church attendance that isn’t God, that is some pushy preacher. God is not coercive in this sense.

Which threats would those be? Heaven and hell? Those are not punishments made to force people into right action, those are merely the concequences. Society has it to, it is called jail. If you do something wrong you are punished, for both God and man.

And since when has God run across the battlefield with a rifle? I am afraid I am not sure which attacks you believe God has lead.

Why is it OK? Well, assuming God has done something wrong I think it is personally egotistical to assume that God has many of the same faculties we do, to think he does things to stroke some massive divine ego is putting quite a but into the universiality of human consciousness.

Nope, according to law this would make you an accomplice… assuming God is a criminal (assuming you can accuse God of being such).

Also, food for thought: if you believe in God and believe that there is a universal right and wrong then what are you to follow? Did God create right and wrong, and thus should be able to veto it or is God bound by some arbitrary notion of right and wrong that exists outside of God, created by humans and placed on God?

So then God is in no way flawed, just our conception of God is flawed. This here, I think, more than anything shows the problem. Our theories of God’s motivations and actions may lead him to be terrible, but that is a problem of our understanding NOT of God’s culpibility.

And my point exactly. We are putting the ego in God, God may very well have no ego. It very well doesn’t make sense that God would have a conventional ego.

Who turned man against man? I thought that was man. God has never put two people in a cage with knives and said “the last on standing gets a prize.” Man started fighting man, not God.

Neither can I, this seems absurd. If God was really that hurting for attention I think he would FORCE us to unquestionably believe in him (every one of us) and then FORCE us to worship him or face concequences. This hasn’t been the case though, if he was this vain we would see some more direct action.

I just like this. :clap:

Then don’t think of God in human terms, God isn’t a human. Our nature is as such, and we understand that so when we try and comprehend something out of that sphere we try in our own terms. I like to think of the complexity of God like this: God is the sculptor and we are the sculpture, how able is a statue to try and comprehend the maker? I think one step up and it is the same idea, we are humans and God is God. Like apples and deities, not the same ballbark.

We do condemn people for as long as we can when they do extreme wrongs. God has a different conception of where the line of punishment should be drawn, but I think very few people would have issues with someone like Stalin spending a couple of summers in hell. This is merely a matter of perception: we and God both have different ideas about what acts constitute wrong, how much of the actions deserve which punishments, and just how much punishment we can execute.

Different ideas for different people. Culturally I don’t think every culture in the world could have handeled the same religion, so God mixed it up. Just remember that the different religions of the world don’t compete, they merely have different ideas. It could very well turn out that one of them is right, they are all right in some way, make the post-modernists happy and NONE of them are right in any way; but the mere fact that they are out there suggests either a lot of confused people or a reason we might not see for why God would choose to reveal truth to different people in different ways.

God doesn’t force me to worship him with the threat of punishment. I believe in God and pray to God, I seek knowledge of God, because I feel it is the just and right thing to do. I do not believe that is I try really hard and give it a little extra I can dodge heaven, in fact my belief is that no amount of hard work can guarantee redemption but only faith in God can make it a possibility: I follow God’s path to the letter and it doesn’t do a thing to get me into heaven, and yet I still follow.

As I have defended, I don’t think God uses coercive means. It is hard (at least for me) to imagine God without some level of benevolence. I don’t think God is as human or as shallow as you present, so the question becomes almost moot… at least from my understanding of it.

Is it a product of a democratic, individualistic society that makes it hard to conceive of a God that has different obligations and standards than us? The notion of tyranny is a I think first caught up in a presumption of equality- the dictator is wrong because first and foremost, he’s just one of us, in a position he doesn’t deserve any more than we do. Clearly this isn’t the case with God.

I spoke only of how religions portray Gods. Human religions give gods criminal humanity, not I. I would not follow such Gods for the Gods of man’s religions are criminalistic in nature.

I must though in fact think of the human creator as a parental figure not Godly. A sentient being no matter how evolved is still a sentient being.

Man gave the creator false egos. For what omnipotent being would create a subservient species only for worship and to follow. There would not be a need for subservience. If we are meant to stand with this being then we must question learn and compare. To not do so would create inequality.
You can not be with your creator if you are not equal, you must stand apart. How can you ever face the creator as less then your true able self. Our evolution is to be a part of creation as sentient beings.
Not servants to another being but, perhaps servants to all things as protectors and nurturers as the creators gift to this universe as its children.

Kriswest

But it is you. You are putting words in the mouths of religions that are not there, and misunderstanding what is there.

First, there’s a great deal more to life than that- I know of no religion that teaches what you’re criticizing above.

What do you mean by ‘stand with this being’? If you mean as equals, then no religion teaches that either, and it wouldn’t make any sense if they did.

Inequality between us and God? Yes, that’s exactly the state we’re in, and always will be in. “Inequality” is only a bad thing because it rubs against our belief that “All Men Were Created Equal” or, “all humans have equal intrinsic worth” or however you want to phrase it. In other words, inequality among humans is a falsehood. Inequality between us and God would be an absolute reality if God existed, and there’s no moral implications there.

Every theistic religion I know teaches that we are, in fact, apart from God at least in the present. It's one of the first things they acknowledge.  So there's no inconsistency there, either. 

It sounds like you're saying you'll only believe in a God that is an equal with you.  That sounds pretty limited to me- by which I mean, you're pretty much stuck worshiping your neighbor, your uncle, your dog.  You aren't going to be equal, ever, to any sort of being to which the term "God" would make sense to apply. 
Are you saying that it offends your ego that a being like this would exist? That would be understandable, it's a very hard thing to come to terms with.

How could I be equal ? I am not, If you notice I used the words, evolve supieror being, omnipotent, parent, child. Do you actually believe I think I am equal? ROFL. I don’t worship my Father nor mother but I greatly respect them and honor them. They are wiser than me due to the amount of time they(Ok Dad is wiser, Mom is bonkers) have lived on this world. That gives them the distinct advantage of having more time to learn.

How could I stand beside the creator yet as an equal? I plan to but, only after I evolve to its level if ever. Because a child must always strive to be as good as or better then ones that gave them life and raised them. To be less is dishonorable.

By using the words superior , omnipotent evolve parent child it puts me automatically on a different plane than the being.

I don’t see the creator of man as a God but, as a supieror sentient being. Frankly I can’t see that anything in this universe deserves worship just because its better or more than me. Thats not ego that is just a view of the universe. I feel no need to bow before anyhing nor anyone. I am me an individual and just as precious as anything and anyone in this universe.
I am not special nor unique. But, I exist therefore I am precious just as anything that exists, good or evil.

I have no disrespect for any beliefs but, to me the way they are laid out they portray Gods as ego filled criminals. That is my view It is not yours nor anyone elses as far as I know. Your belief in your religion is as important to you as my views are to me. You are not wrong. I am not wrong.

You in no way could fit in my cothes any more than I could fit in yours. Does that make your clothes or my clothes bad? Nope. You have your path to follow I have mine. Your ways wll never be harmed by me for you need them, I don’t. I am always glad to explain or try to explain my unique view. And I have always defended religion.

Man needs beliefs like man needs water. Especially since we are evolving and walking down uncertain paths. This supieror being may have laid down ethical rules to follow but, it sure did not leave a map or a detailed irrefutable instruction manual for all of us. Religious texts are just ethics, they don’t cover the rest. We get t figure out the rest on our own. It will take many wong turns and many dead ends and many mountains before we finally get it right. This is the path I am on and untill I find out its a wrong one I think I wil stick with it. Just as you need to stick with yours.

Send up a flare if you are right and if I am right I will do the same.

Hello Felix:

— For some people I think God does serve that purpose. But that doesn’t make God “merely” that.
O- What more then? In it’s bare bones, when all is said and done, people worship and pray to God ad hoc.

— Someone may wish there was a God so that they would get a reward.
O- What is the Sermon on the Mount but a message for them?

— Someone may hope that there isn’t so that they don’t get punished. The one who wishes there was a God must believe that there is not or she would not need to wish. The one who hopes that there is no God must believe that there is or he would have no need to hope.
O- Those who believe hope for His reward, some perhaps in the punishment of others. But this changes nothing. It seems that good is still regarded as a tool, a means to an end.

— For the theocentric believer, there is just God. Heaven and Hell are states of being in relation to God.
O- A relation conceived as reward or a punishment.

— If that were the case then we would not actually be believing what we are telling ourselves.
O- “Telling” in a very unconscious level, perhaps instinctual, supported by an urge for self-preservation.

— That kind of dichotomous thinking breaks down in God’s presence.
O- Have you ever been in God’s precense to know this? Or is this another article of piety?

— The reward is God Himself. The punishment is God’s absence.
O- This is the water down theology of today, but how much of it is supported by the Gospel?

— Jesus taught that we should deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him.
O- For what? Is there any reason that one should take up his cross and follow him? Most definetly, and for him that heed this call will be rewarded in the New Jerusalem, the City of God. That is the point. It is a very selfish desire that moves one to faith. Faith in God solely because of God regardless of what God means, represents or how he relates, now or in the afterlife, is what I want to know of. Do you think that such a faith exist?

Hello Andrew:

— One of the unique characteristics of the Abrahamic God, as distinct from the pagan deities that preceded Him, is that He never stated a specific purpose for our existence. Other myths held that humans were created for the sake of doing the tasks that the gods didn’t want to do, or for some other menial purpose.
O- Well, actually the OT is filled with decriptions of Israel as a Born Servant, and perhaps man’s purpose was to care for His Garden of Eden.

— Deists do.
O- Quite right, but then these were men of the world, this world, I think, with little need for promises of beyond. An Unmoved Mover to wind the clock that is the Universe and they are happy.

But certainly the point can be raised that both the tyrant and God share a need for glory. Does it strike you as strange that God possessess the qualities that follow the definition of Vanity?