"What's the point? An impersonal God unconcerned with humans wouldn't care if we worshipped it or not.
Caring if we did or not would imply need and power granted to us. If we disobey, then we are back to that scenario of some sort of Santi Claus embodiment, sitting on a cloud, weeping in disapointment....as we discussed earlier. Nonsense, of course. An entity can't be this and ALL Powerful at the same time.
"Worship is supposed to be what God desires. If God doesn't desire it, it's just meaningless ritual."
I wouldn't use the word "desire" in this context. Actually God ordered it for us because of the benefits such worship brings to us and not because of any benefit to God (such as: fulfillment of desire). There are other names for God that denote character. The one I most commonly think of is "Al Haq" (translation: The Truth). The terms used to describe God must be limitless in scope. For example: "The Truth" (as presented in my religion) encompasses the ideal of a God who is the "Most Merciful" and vice versa.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I fail to see the point."
You just made the point. If the only reason to "worship" is to have a social reference in which to belong, then the worship itself becomes empty of value except in the political sense. If what you worship has worth that is beyond what you can buy or build on your own then I would term it as worthy of worship. I am not trying to convince you of anything...merely seeking clarity in communication.
As for responsibility...I still contend that the use of this term is limited to the application of human behavior and ethics. God is the Alpha and Omega, or not, by definition. If this God exists as I contend, then it can't also be this incompetent, medling, bungler that can't seem to keep us in line. |
