• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

Bird123

Well-Known Member
The last time I looked around I found only mankind writes anything.
Scripture informs us at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Bible writers were putting down God's thoughts for us.
That is why among the many Bible writers we can see the internal harmony among them.
Even the Golden Rule has conditions or requirements applied to it to love neighbor as self.
So, No , God's love is Not Unconditional. The 'Law of Love' has requirements.
Jesus New commandment or requirement at John 13:34-35 says we are now to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has. In other words, we are required to now love neighbor ' more ' than self. More than the Golden Rule.
I find Matthew 12:32 B shows God's love is with conditions.


Clearly, your writers do not come from God. They reflect mankind. God is at a much Higher Level.

No one is required to do anything by God. We are all free to choose. God is not as helpless under the realm of free will as you think. Kiddies will learn to Love Unconditionally because the system is geared toward High Intelligence and the best choices.

Can you think of any better way than frying your kids? Religion and mankind has and is teaching people to value so many petty things. Can you not see it in your holy book?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?
:)
We would have to wait for God to send a Messenger who would reveal scriptures. :D
 

Pudding

Well-Known Member
Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

:)
Do they still remember the concept of deity and deities' names?

Some people might write another books or fiction novels, added vague prophesy, self-fulfilled prophesy, logical fallacy, lots of bold-empty claims about deities into it, there, the writer or someone else who found out those books might then believe they can use those books to find/demonstrate those deities exist.

As the stories about those deities become more popular, many more different version of deities' messengers show up here and there, writing new books and might try to use those books to prove many more different version of deities exists.

Add in indoctrination, fear, punishment and reward in the afterlife, force convert by using violence, then that specific religion flourish splendidly. History might repeat again, a lot of people fighting with each other in the name of deities. Some followers from some religions refuse to sell cakes to non-followers. A lot of deities' believers keeps saying that the judgement day or the end of the world is coming soon...etc.

Year 2019: Coming soon! Coming soon!
Year 2020: Coming soon! Coming soon!
Year 2021: Coming soon! Coming soon!
...if still haven't coming...
Year 3019: Coming, soon! Soon, coming!
Year 3020: Coming, soon! Soon, coming!
Year 3021: Coming, soon! Soon, coming!
...if still haven't coming...
Year 4019: Coming soon! Very soon!
Year 4020: Coming soon! Very soon!
Year 4021: Coming soon! Very soon!
...repeat.
 
Last edited:

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
If I describe the blue sky and clouds, is it really a sermon.
I can look outside to verify it :p

One can do such things without requiring anything from you. I require nothing of you.
Same here, pal.

Perhaps, I am explaining more than you realize.No one was pointing for me when I started my journey.
Yes, you are explaining more than I realise. Equally, the alien abductee is explaining more than I realise. Assertions are just that.

Now if religion has corrupted your view into wanting everything served up on a plate so you can choose to believe or not,I try never to do that.
What? I don't have a religion.

So much more is learned along the path to discover anything and that includes the path to discover reality. Discovery takes work. Sometimes the roughest road will end up with the best view.
Yes, this is why I read science journals and have read philosophy. It was not easy. What have you read?
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
That would be silly to say a true Christian would Not worship God . See what Jesus instructed at John 4:23-24.
Right, one would have to worship God in order to be resurrected to Heaven.
Only those of mankind who have a first or earlier resurrection can go to Heaven - Revelation 20:6; Rev. 5:9-10.
They have two (2) jobs to do while in Heaven:
1) They will govern over Earth or over earthly subjects as kings for righteousness taking care of governmental duties.
2) They will serve mankind on Earth as priests meaning taking care of spiritual responsibilities towards earth's people.
Those people resurrected to Heaven are like those of Luke 22:28-30.
As for the rest of resurrected mankind they can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection back to life on Earth.
ALL the resurrections that Jesus performed where physical resurrections.
Jesus was giving us a glimpse of the future. The people Jesus resurrected gives us a preview, or a coming attraction, of what Jesus will be doing during his 1,000-year reign over Earth in resurrecting the dead - Revelation 1:18.

The bad consequences for those who prove to be wicked are as Psalms 92:7 says: will simply be ' destroyed forever '
In other words, the wicked will 'perish' never to see life again neither in Heaven nor everlasting life on Earth.

And we have returned back to the original question: why does a supremely powerful entity require worship or praise?
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying; it would be nice to have video evidence to examine. However, even videos can be fabricated. Conversely, there are many events in ancient history that we can verify confidently today. Jesus' crucifixion is recorded in the Gospels as well as by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18:3:3), Tacitus (Annals 15:44), Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11–13), and Mara bar Serapion. John Dominic Crossan, resurrection skeptic and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, was right when he wrote, "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145, quoted online here).

Could it be that although Jesus was crucified, maybe He somehow survived His execution? A 1986 study from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found such not to be the case: "Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross."

Unlike with the person from South Africa, it's clear Jesus really died.
Well, this is detracting what I'm getting at but in both cases no medical professional from our century examined the corpse lol :p I don't mind for arguments sake sake Jesus was actually dead or even, in general, believing this part of history.

This is a good question, so let's back up. Now in this hypothetical scenario, we have a preacher who claims to be working for God. He claims he can prove it by raising someone from the dead. Suddenly, he does everything in the video, and the dead guy arises. I'd be skeptical, so let's say we check the records and discover that the dead man was put to death by electrocution. I would say first off that it would contradict what we know about how nature works: that dead people don't rise. Therefore, the cause must be outside nature.

But what is the cause? It's not like a miracle can come with a label telling us. Or can it? Again, if this person claimed God was with him and that he could raise someone from the dead, and suddenly, against nature, this happens--I mean, what better way could God confirm He was with someone? So my answer would be that yes, God did it.

What would you conclude in this scenario?
Ah, this is the bulk of what I'm getting at and I'm so glad you're intellectually honest. So, is everything they say thereafter true?

What would you conclude in this scenario?
I need to look at the claims made. If the person said he is a god and then raises someone from the dead, then this proves they have immense power(assuming it's not a hoax or trick). Can I classify someone with immense power as a omin-present, omni-potent, etc god? No, but we're getting there. This person may be, with the present information, more closely related to a polytheistic deity unless we examine what else he/she can do. However, if someone revived by themselves and says god did it or I am god, then this proves nothing. They don't logically follow. If they said they are hard to kill because they revived or whatnot, then this claim is certainly satisfied. My thoughts I explained here were precisely because I assumed they were directly related. However, if the only this we know is this person was raised from the dead, then I can think of many other logical options with equal weight. In other words, they'd have to be more verification. I need to examine every claim independently. I explain this in the bottom response.

Elvis? Actually, back when I did a debate with the admin of edeb.com, he also brought this up. Such can be explained by Elvis' many impersonators running around. Are you suggesting that maybe someone was impersonating Jesus? Surely you don't think this could have convinced skeptics like then-church persecutor Saul, do you?

Maybe you're referring to the non-skeptics who knew Jesus better. In the debate, however, even my opponent conceded that "the less somebody knew Jesus, the more likely they are to have been convinced by an impersonator" and that "impersonation is considerably easier to do if you're not a close associate of the person being impersonated" (emphasis added).

I don't know if that's where you were going; Edeb8's admin posited it, anyway. Regardless, the idea fails to explain most, if not all, of the named resurrection witnesses recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but it is a possibility. Therefore, you cannot ignore it unless you have irrefutable deduced this cannot be the case. However, we cannot go to the past and there were no video cameras then, etc, it is left unsolved and a mystery. I understand that you have to make a choice because you soul is on the line but mine isn't. I don't believe in God, so I'm under no obligation and pressure to make a decision now or ever. This reminds me when I did jury service. The evidence was so circumstantial but they put it in the hands of jurors. We had to decide something or we couldn't go home lol, but here i'm not under pressure :p

This isn't a baseless assumption but rather is grounded in what it means to be crucified; let's just say Jesus wasn't slapped on the wrist. Again, "Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross."
You are deducing here that he had to be dead, but all I need is one example to show this may have not been the case. I think it's more likely than not he was actually dead, but I'm saying this is not necessarily the case. And since your life, and mine apparently, rests on this information, I think it's appropriate to examine these sorts of things. Even today people are burred alive by mistake because they were thought dead. This actually happens. I can imagine how worse this is in the past considering their medical knowledge. They used to think blood letting healed diseases because the body was out of balance or some such nonsense.

Neither is this assumed. Virtually all of even secular scholarship accepts Jesus' crucifixion as fact. Again, Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan said Jesus' crucifixion is "as sure as anything historical can ever be." Bart Ehrman, North America's leading resurrection skeptic, rated it something "we can say with virtual certainty about Jesus."

Furthermore, in the words of Germany's leading resurrection skeptic, Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80, quoted online here).

None of the story's key elements are challenged.
I'm sure, but it's something to keep in mind. Fabrication is a thing, even in historical context. Perhaps there was someone called Jesus that was crucified and people saw him walking around after he was dead. Reviving from actual death(not burred alive by mistake) is not a common occurrence, at all, then this becomes more dubious than not. Therefore, it's important to look at other possibilities. We cannot examine what actually happened, so it's left to remain a mystery. Christians want to affirm it happened. Ok fine.

(I think you're confusing resurrection with raising when you say it "implies someone else did it." Even then, God [the Father] raising Jesus isn't "problematic" but Scriptural [1 Thess. 1:9-10].) To say you "don't see how the only logical explanation is god" implies you could see one or more alternative explanations. What might those be? Sorry for keeping you waiting. :)
No worries :) I'm just saying that resurrection already implies/conflates the idea of someone else doing it and external power if you will. So, it's kinda like the answer was given in the first place. Revive might be more appropriate, because then it gives more possibilities.

Ok, so I can think of numerous logical possibilities. Let's assume some random Joe revived from being medically dead for three days. I might think it's a natural occurrence and something special to this individual or something not considered. There's actual an interesting movie on this particular topic - The Man from Earth (2007) - IMDb. He was an immortal human - in the sense of not ageing and resisting disease and has faster healing, but he could die- that went through history and become known as many names. Even people made a religion from him ;) However, he didn't like what happened and now remains anonymous, etc. Sorry for the spoiler. Anyway, there's also the possibility of an advanced alien race or advanced technology doing it. We might think it's possible that some supernatural entity did it or powerful beings. This explain is more in the line of deities. So, take your pick or choose none at all and I find that answer equally as plausible.
 
Last edited:

Kilk1

Member
Well, this is detracting what I'm getting at but in both cases no medical professional from our century examined the corpse lol :p I don't mind for arguments sake sake Jesus was actually dead or even, in general, believing this part of history.


Ah, this is the bulk of what I'm getting at and I'm so glad you're intellectually honest. So, is everything they say thereafter true?


I need to look at the claims made. If the person said he is a god and then raises someone from the dead, then this proves they have immense power(assuming it's not a hoax or trick). Can I classify someone with immense power as a omin-present, omni-potent, etc god? No, but we're getting there. This person may be, with the present information, more closely related to a polytheistic deity unless we examine what else he/she can do. However, if someone revived by themselves and says god did it or I am god, then this proves nothing. They don't logically follow. If they said they are hard to kill because they revived or whatnot, then this claim is certainly satisfied. My thoughts I explained here were precisely because I assumed they were directly related. However, if the only this we know is this person was raised from the dead, then I can think of many other logical options with equal weight. In other words, they'd have to be more verification. I need to examine every claim independently. I explain this in the bottom response.


I'm not saying this is what happened, but it is a possibility. Therefore, you cannot ignore it unless you have irrefutable deduced this cannot be the case. However, we cannot go to the past and there were no video cameras then, etc, it is left unsolved and a mystery. I understand that you have to make a choice because you soul is on the line but mine isn't. I don't believe in God, so I'm under no obligation and pressure to make a decision now or ever. This reminds me when I did jury service. The evidence was so circumstantial but they put it in the hands of jurors. We had to decide something or we couldn't go home lol, but here i'm not under pressure :p


You are deducing here that he had to be dead, but all I need is one example to show this may have not been the case. I think it's more likely than not he was actually dead, but I'm saying this is not necessarily the case. And since your life, and mine apparently, rests on this information, I think it's appropriate to examine these sorts of things. Even today people are burred alive by mistake because they were thought dead. This actually happens. I can imagine how worse this is in the past considering their medical knowledge. They used to think blood letting healed diseases because the body was out of balance or some such nonsense.


I'm sure, but it's something to keep in mind. Fabrication is a thing, even in historical context. Perhaps there was someone called Jesus that was crucified and people saw him walking around after he was dead. Reviving from actual death(not burred alive by mistake) is not a common occurrence, at all, then this becomes more dubious than not. Therefore, it's important to look at other possibilities. We cannot examine what actually happened, so it's left to remain a mystery. Christians want to affirm it happened. Ok fine.


No worries :) I'm just saying that resurrection already implies/conflates the idea of someone else doing it and external power if you will. So, it's kinda like the answer was given in the first place. Revive might be more appropriate, because then it gives more possibilities.

Ok, so I can think of numerous logical possibilities. Let's assume some random Joe revived from being medically dead for three days. I might think it's a natural occurrence and something special to this individual or something not considered. There's actual an interesting movie on this particular topic - The Man from Earth (2007) - IMDb. He was an immortal human - in the sense of not ageing and resisting disease and has faster healing, but he could die- that went through history and become known as many names. Even people made a religion from him ;) However, he didn't like what happened and now remains anonymous, etc. Sorry for the spoiler. Anyway, there's also the possibility of an advanced alien race or advanced technology doing it. We might think it's possible that some supernatural entity did it or powerful beings. This explain is more in the line of deities. So, take your pick or choose none at all and I find that answer equally as plausible.

In the post before your last one, you brought up a number of questions, and I tried answering them all at once; maybe this caused the discussion to explode too quicky, making you have to reply to everything I wrote. There's a lot you brought up in the last post that I should address eventually. However, if it's okay with you, I'd like to move to a more structured, step-by-step approach (one that involves shorter posts :sweatsmile:) instead of making yet another big response. See the following syllogism:

P1: If Jesus rose from the dead, God raised Jesus.
P2: Jesus rose from the dead.
C: Therefore, God raised Jesus.

The two premises are basically the two topics under consideration. How about we discuss just one for now and, depending on how things go, move to the next one later? We can do whichever premise you want now. :)
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
In the post before your last one, you brought up a number of questions, and I tried answering them all at once; maybe this caused the discussion to explode too quicky, making you have to reply to everything I wrote. There's a lot you brought up in the last post that I should address eventually. However, if it's okay with you, I'd like to move to a more structured, step-by-step approach (one that involves shorter posts :sweatsmile:) instead of making yet another big response. See the following syllogism:

P1: If Jesus rose from the dead, God raised Jesus.
P2: Jesus rose from the dead.
C: Therefore, God raised Jesus.

The two premises are basically the two topics under consideration. How about we discuss just one for now and, depending on how things go, move to the next one later? We can do whichever premise you want now. :)
Yeah, let's try. I'm not proficient worth formal logic, but we can try :) Mind if I reshape it like so:

P1: Only God revives humans from the dead
P2: Jesus(name can be replaced) was revived from the dead
C: Jesus(name can be replaced) was revived by God

However, this is a bit complicated since, apparently, Jesus is god(?). So, maybe we can construct another argument just for Jesus.

P1: Only God can revive himself from the dead
P2: Jesus revived himself from the dead
C: Jesus is God

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No, not really. If science disappeared and anything relating to it, we'd be thrown back to the stone age. However, to say we won't get back to something similar to science is just false. Science continues to change, unlike some things, and in it's current form uses the hypothetico deductive model. Philosophically, now, science is akin to methodological naturalism. This was not always the case and has taken different shapes throughout history. Therefore, it's safe to assume, the more humans understand something the less we need unexplainable things to to explain phenomena.


That's not what I said and was asking. If, say, Mark Twain disappeared from the history books, it's unlikely we'd see his works ever again because they're unique to him. Similarly, religions would have a similar problem. They're either observed one time events and/or fabrications. I'm asking for some way to find your deity today, or any, if religion disappeared.
"more humans understand something the less we need unexplainable things to to explain phenomena"

Knowledge is not understanding by any measurement. Heraclitus 500bc

so you have made a simple behavioral statement instinctively made like a dog barking at the wind l without realizing it. It's time independent thus reality independent because the same statment is repeated each generation behaviorally. Rather pavlovian of culture I might add. Tooth fairy category.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Knowledge is not understanding by any measurement. Heraclitus 500bc
lol can you cite where you got that?

so you have made a simple behavioral statement instinctively made like a dog barking at the wind l without realizing it.
Lol it's demonstrable. I don't see Thor describing lightning or humorism describing diseases anymore :D Nor do I see tautologies in science anymore. The only one barking is you.

It's time independent thus reality independent because the same statment is repeated each generation behaviorally. Rather pavlovian of culture I might add. Tooth fairy category.
I don't speak gobbledegook.
 

Kilk1

Member
Yeah, let's try. I'm not proficient worth formal logic, but we can try :) Mind if I reshape it like so:

P1: Only God revives humans from the dead
P2: Jesus(name can be replaced) was revived from the dead
C: Jesus(name can be replaced) was revived by God

However, this is a bit complicated since, apparently, Jesus is god(?). So, maybe we can construct another argument just for Jesus.

P1: Only God can revive himself from the dead
P2: Jesus revived himself from the dead
C: Jesus is God

What do you think?
Okay! These new syllogisms sound about the same as the original, so I'm probably fine with any of the ones we've brought up. The main thing, I suppose, is whether we're going to first discuss the implications of Jesus' resurrection (P1) or the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (P2).

Hopefully this approach will allow for shorter posts. Which premise would you like to start with? :smiley:
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Okay! These new syllogisms sound about the same as the original, so I'm probably fine with any of the ones we've brought up. The main thing, I suppose, is whether we're going to first discuss the implications of Jesus' resurrection (P1) or the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (P2).

Hopefully this approach will allow for shorter posts. Which premise would you like to start with? :smiley:
These look valid now let's see if the argument is sound. Great, let's start with the first proposition from the first syllogism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we talk about the truthfulness of a premise the name changes to proposition? Anyway :p

P1: Only God revives humans from the dead
Assuming God exists, how do we exclude other entities or possibilities for human revival from death?
 
Last edited:

Kilk1

Member
These look valid now let's see if the argument is sound. Great, let's start with the first proposition from the first syllogism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we talk about the truthfulness of a premise the name changes to proposition? Anyway :p

P1: Only God revives humans from the dead
Assuming God exists, how do we exclude other entities or possibilities for human revival from death?
First off, I assume we would agree that any purely natural explanation must be excluded. We know that according to the laws of nature, dead cells don't regenerate, right? If someone truly died and then truly revived, would you agree that this goes against everything we scientifically know about nature?
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
First off, I assume we would agree that any purely natural explanation must be excluded. We know that according to the laws of nature, dead cells don't regenerate, right? If someone truly died and then truly revived, would you agree that this goes against everything we scientifically know about nature?
I don't see how we can conclude it must be a supernatural phenomenon when we don't know all natural phenomena, nor have we stopped learning or stopped changing our models. This is demonstrated by continual progress in technology and knowledge. To say it must be a supernatural phenomenon would be like saying, "how the brain works is still somewhat a mystery to us, therefore, it must be a supernatural phenomenon."

We can revive people from death(a few minutes as I recall) with our current technology and medical knowledge. All you need to do is compare medieval medical knowledge lol. My point here is that science changes and scientists in the medical field don't say, "laws of nature," as if science works like this. Science currently uses statistics, not absolutes.

Most importantly however, this still doesn't exclude the possibility that a particular person is unique, something happened under unique circumstances or it was advance technology, etc, which still within the realm of natural phenomena. Therefore, it seems what you need to do is explain when something is mysterious it must necessarily be supernatural. I'm curious how you'd go about this. :cool:
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Clearly, your writers do not come from God. They reflect mankind. God is at a much Higher Level.
No one is required to do anything by God. We are all free to choose. God is not as helpless under the realm of free will as you think. Kiddies will learn to Love Unconditionally because the system is geared toward High Intelligence and the best choices.
Can you think of any better way than frying your kids? Religion and mankind has and is teaching people to value so many petty things. Can you not see it in your holy book?
Yipes ! there is No frying in Scripture, that is a false clergy teaching - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
Kids are covered by the believing parent according to 1 Corinthians 7:14.

False clergy often use the word hellfire as a scare tactic to try to control the flock of God.
The English word hellfire comes from the word Gehenna.
Gehenna was a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed forever Not burning forever.
When JKV translated the word Gehenna into English as hellfire, and that put flames in death.
Jesus taught ' sleep ' in death at John 11:11-14.
Because Jesus was well educated in the OT is why Jesus taught 'sleep in death' and Not pain in death:
- Psalms 6:5; Psalms 13:3; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5

Yes, we are all free to choose because we are created with free-will choices.
Kiddies learn love because love is one of God's main attributes or qualities along with justice, wisdom and mercy.
Unless damaged, we all come with an inborn conscience that can be trained to make the best choices.
Scripture teaches us to now love neighbor ' more ' than self according to Jesus at John 13:34-35.
Jesus taught such self-sacrificing love for others as an example or model for us to reflect or follow.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yeah, let's try. I'm not proficient worth formal logic, but we can try :) Mind if I reshape it like so:
P1: Only God revives humans from the dead
P2: Jesus(name can be replaced) was revived from the dead
C: Jesus(name can be replaced) was revived by God
However, this is a bit complicated since, apparently, Jesus is god(?). So, maybe we can construct another argument just for Jesus.
P1: Only God can revive himself from the dead
P2: Jesus revived himself from the dead
C: Jesus is God
What do you think?

I think the Bible is right when it teaches that the God of Jesus is who resurrected the dead Jesus .
- Acts of the Apostles 2:24,27,32; Acts of the Apostles 3:15; Acts of the Apostles 5:30; Colossians 2:12.
Jesus being the first born from the dead according to Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:20.
The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he has a God over him as per Revelation 3:12.
God has thus given Jesus the Resurrection Power - Revelation 1:18.
While Jesus was on Earth he was giving us a glimpse into the future resurrections.
On Earth, Jesus was giving us a small sample or preview of what the will be doing on a grand international scale.
During Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over Earth the majority of the dead will have the same opportunity that was given to Adam before his downfall, to live forever on Earth, everlasting life on Earth.
Thus, via resurrection humble meek people will inherit the Earth as promised at Psalms 37:9-11.
Upright ones can remain here on Earth (Not go away) - Proverbs 2:21-22.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
So, that you can live forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was a sample free of sickness and death.
That's a condition not a requirement for why god needs it.

I'll explain the difference. It's conditional that give money for food. Equally, it's conditional that, for you, I need to praise/worship god to get in heaven. However, this doesn't explain why god needs/requires it, which is what I'm asking. Equal, I need food for survival and because eating good food is pleasurable. See the difference now?

So, again, why does God require praise/worship?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That's a condition not a requirement for why god needs it.
So, again, why does God require praise/worship?
God does not need our praise/worship, because God has no needs, since God is fully self-sufficient.
The only reason God has enjoined humans to worship Him is for our own benefit, NOT for God's benefit.
This is an important concept.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh,pp. 260
 
Top