Is god worship really just an exercise in idolatry?

[AthenaAwakened]

If there is no god, then the answer is an automatic yes.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence. It would be an empty gesture, an vessel to filled. Instead of being a ultimate reality, it becomes a repository of its creator, of its creator's dreams and nightmares and its creator's limited understanding and nothing of the ultimate reality at all.

This is why all gods fail. They just us, or what we want, or what we dread, just blown up 50 feet tall.



That's my opinion. What's yours?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence.

That may not matter.
The OT God is clearly unconcerned about whether or not we understand him, as long as we fear him and sacrifice bulls to him. The idol serves as a marker, I dedicate this bull to you. Or nowdays, I'm in your house, I dedicate this hour of my Sunday to you.

The history of religion would have been very different if God had revealed those name-tape guns to Moses. Wouldn't need a church, just a lot of 'this is god's' stickers.

 

[skepticalbip]

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence. It would be an empty gesture, an vessel to filled. Instead of being a ultimate reality, it becomes a repository of its creator, of its creator's dreams and nightmares and its creator's limited understanding and nothing of the ultimate reality at all.

This is why all gods fail. They just us, or what we want, or what we dread, just blown up 50 feet tall.


That's my opinion. What's yours?

I would agree with you but you stopped far short of covering all bases. Your analysis also applies to all the beliefs of PSI, esp, supernatural powers.

People dream of living on past death in some "ethereal plane", being able to communicate by mind across miles or ages, spiritual healing, out of body transporting themselves at will to exotic locations just to check them out, having a spiritual protecting being, foretelling the future, etc. etc. - All wishful thinking that is just what we desire or want blown up to fifty feet that they accept as reality.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence. It would be an empty gesture, an vessel to filled. Instead of being a ultimate reality, it becomes a repository of its creator, of its creator's dreams and nightmares and its creator's limited understanding and nothing of the ultimate reality at all.

This is why all gods fail. They just us, or what we want, or what we dread, just blown up 50 feet tall.


That's my opinion. What's yours?

I would agree with you but you stopped far short of covering all bases. Your analysis also applies to all the beliefs of PSI, esp, supernatural powers.

People dream of living on past death in some "ethereal plane", being able to communicate by mind across miles or ages, spiritual healing, out of body transporting themselves at will to exotic locations just to check them out, having a spiritual protecting being, foretelling the future, etc. etc. - All wishful thinking that is just what we desire or want blown up to fifty feet that they accept as reality.

Well, the forum is Existence of God(s) ergo a discussion about gods, but I see your point.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In the past, man has made up many, many Gods. Celtic Gods, Mayan Gods, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, Canaanite Gods and on and on and on. Somewhre along the line, the ancient Israelites adapted a Canaanite god named El, and started playing the game of "My God is bigger than your God". More powerful, grander, greater and this game continues on to this day. At bottom, this is what it is all about. As this maximized Ultra-God was created, later on we find the claims about such a being become self-contradictatory and incompatible. So now among the "experts" it has become a game of trying to save appearances. And God starts drifting off into abstractness. God is "Ground of our being" etc. For many it is an idol, no different from some ancient Roman celebrating Sol Invictus or Zeus, Quetzcoatl or Ceranos. For some "sophisticates" it is an empty game of saving appearances, of trying to avoid admitting this God is exactly like nothing at all.

God is a desperate metaphysical game at best, an empty idol at worst.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If there is no god, then the answer is an automatic yes.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence. It would be an empty gesture, an vessel to filled. Instead of being a ultimate reality, it becomes a repository of its creator, of its creator's dreams and nightmares and its creator's limited understanding and nothing of the ultimate reality at all.

This is why all gods fail. They just us, or what we want, or what we dread, just blown up 50 feet tall.



That's my opinion. What's yours?

Considering the possibility that we may be part of a larger organism is scientifically valid. But the word "god" has too much baggage and its use over the millennia more to do with justifying aggression in the name of survival, again, perhaps a very necessary and valid behavior.

But when worship happens I think it's just disguised self-worship, not fear and dread but rather an expression of supremacism, that somehow you're better than the next person. Worshipping a god is just worshipping yourself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If there is no god, then the answer is an automatic yes.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence.

I don't understand this claim. If there is a god, and that god create man, he can create man well enough to understand at least some part of god. A god doesn't fail because of personality issues. I mean suppose the universe was initiated by something, something even conscious. There is no rule that says such an entity must be perfect and not have issues.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If there is no god, then the answer is an automatic yes.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence.

I don't understand this claim. If there is a god, and that god create man, he can create man well enough to understand at least some part of god.

Except that is not gods do. That is how gods start, but they always seem to grow and wind up trying to be all things to all people. AND THEN, people begin to notice that in that growth of god, there are contridictions, and then comes the ultimate explanation, "The ways of God are inexplicable. we must just have faith." IOW, the religion itself declares its god unknowable.

And part of god, is still not god. understanding the toe nail of god leads to worshiping and idolizing the toe nail of god, which is not the same as god.

A god doesn't fail because of personality issues. I mean suppose the universe was initiated by something, something even conscious. There is no rule that says such an entity must be perfect and not have issues.

The point is that a god, isn't; and can not be because any god that could be contained in a concept will always be a god too small to be what a believer professes god to be.

 

[sdelsolray]

If there is no god, then the answer is an automatic yes.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say there is an ultimate presence of some kind. Such a thing would be beyond human comprehension and so any description or representation of such a thing would be woefully lacking and not representative of the presence. It would be an empty gesture, an vessel to filled. Instead of being a ultimate reality, it becomes a repository of its creator, of its creator's dreams and nightmares and its creator's limited understanding and nothing of the ultimate reality at all.

This is why all gods fail. They just us, or what we want, or what we dread, just blown up 50 feet tall.



That's my opinion. What's yours?

Gods and similar supernatural entities exist in the imaginations of those that believe they exist. Whatever dogma, ritual or personification they attach to them demonstrates the power of imagination. Does that satisfy your presumed premise of "ultimate presence of some kind"?

 

[ronburgundy]

Technically it is idolatry, but most theisms, especially monotheism are all about promoting idolatry. So, it isn't an internal contradiction. The commands are not against idolatry in general but only against idolatry of anything other than the God invented by those who ascribe such commands to him. The point is actually to intensify blind idolatry toward one particular authority.