Humans Were Created To Worship God

» Home » Miscellaneous

It says somewhere in the bible that "for His (God's) pleasure we were and are created". Does that mean worship? And since the first ever commandment in Genesis 1:28 "be fruitful and multiply"......(meaning humans to have sex/procreate) Does that mean sex is worship of our Creator? I mean if this is His idea....and a Command. And first one, before the 10..... What are your thoughts on this? Is sex worshipping of our Creator?

Scorpion

02 Aug 2008 05:54

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28 sounds like Love and Sex to me.

joe9

04 Aug 2008 15:26

1 Comment

well, of course you do ;-)

GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE.

Scorpion

05 Aug 2008 21:45

Comment

I’m taking Guy’s suggestion here and assuming some things for the sake of argument. So if we assume the existence of a biblical god and we look at the world around us teeming with rampant life in all directions and of all kinds then I have to come to the conclusion that evolution is God’s method of developing or creating the world. Which would bring up the question of whether we are, metaphorically speaking, still in the book of Genesis, but that’s a different debate. Anyway to get back on track, given our assumptions combined with the observable evidence, it would imply to me that god loves life. Life is created through procreation. Now I think everyone would agree that some types of sex are an abomination but given certain limitations I think that if not worship at least a celebration, would be an accurate term within the framework of this discussion.

finsch

02 Aug 2008 19:08

3 Comments

if we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and we were genesis 1:28

and if we are also created to worship God,
then sex is to be our form of expression of God-Worship. ???

Scorpion

02 Aug 2008 19:17

Comment

If god existed- which he doesn't- why would he create man just to worship him. If that was the case then god is an arrogant, egotistical jerk

Tromanator

25 Sep 2008 12:37

Add a Comment

God doesn't exist, drunk!

Balance_92

16 Aug 2008 22:10

Add a Comment

1) That would make God really very self centered and petty. It's like saying your parents only had you so you could do nothing but praise them every waking moment of your life and there's no other point to your existence. 2) I thought the Biblical and church explanation of angels is that they serve every wish and adoration of God. Why did he need billions of people if he had angels who were unfailing in that exact same mission plus are free from sin? 3) Why isn't God more active to ensure we'll worship him? If I get a dog or cat for a pet and want it to love me I'm going to interact with it regularly not just come back to it after years on end and expect it to still remember me and love me. 4) If all we have to do is worship him then we don't need brains or intelligence or society at all. We could all be the equivalent of wild animals just eating and pooping and breeding - and loving God. Heck, he could just declare the trillions of mosquitoes to be created to worship him, they'll just buzz around and feast and say thank you God and die, perfect little servants, and then he doesn't need us with all our complexities.

Grenache

03 Aug 2008 15:11

Add a Comment

We don't have a creator, therefore the whole question is pointless.

Cephus

02 Aug 2008 18:20

12 Comments

Kinda like saying we are all going to die so what's the point?

justsumguy

02 Aug 2008 18:28

Comment

OK. I lived 6 years in a region that was featured on Man vs. Wild with no electricity or running water (unless we ran with the water) helping some of the most primitive people on this planet. The average life expectancy was 6 because most of them died in infancy.

I can break and train horses. Been a working cowboy.

I've spent a lot of time riding 10 to 15 ft waves. Been taken down by a parasail rope while riding.

I'm an extreme skiier who has skiied most of the steepest ski areas in North America.

Grew up in a foreign country. Speak two languages.

Been to Bible Seminary. I know that doesn't count for much...but I'm glad I know what it says cover to cover.

State champion in a sport.

Played guitar in a rock band. Some people think I'm a good song writer.

Developed a database that tracks the day to day operations for a state government office.

Raised two kids. Been married once, just had our 25th anniversary.

Over the past 10 years I do extreme hiking in the Rockies...18 miles ascending 4000 ft over passes at 12,500 to 13,000 ft in 8 hrs (stuff like that).

Currently working 50 hrs a week managing 30 people in a start-up.

Now I ain't saying I'm something special. And I ain't saying I've lived life fuller than you. But I can say one thing. I feel like I've lived about 4 lifetimes and I'm ready to lay on the couch and watch So You Think You can Dance.

And I've done no harm to you and said nothing about your life.

I wouldn't dare to assume. I leave that to the highly reasonable people.

Comment

Aside from the strange description under this debate’s heading, I’d have to disagree. The idea that human beings were created to worship “God” first implies that we know something about this god, which I don’t believe would be likely due to the fact that this being would obviously be a supernaturally divine entity of the Universe while we’re nothing more than a spec of sand on an entire shoreline. Second, this raises the question of which god? There are many gods from many different religions. Why would this god be any more likely to exist and want us to worship them than any other god from any other belief system?

Hizashi

02 Aug 2008 16:36

11 Comments

I understand where you're coming from but the description makes specific reference to the god presented in the Bible.

Obviously, even when narrowed down to this particular god, there are many disagreeances among those who base their beliefs in this god as to what this god wants from humans.

I think it is important to agree that this could be attributed to many observed human weaknesses.

But for sake of argument, it would be best to at least pretend that the particular god in question exists and is defined by at least the most common denominator.

There are few who believe in this particular deity who do not agree on this god being perfect and eternal. Pretty good place to start for debate.

If a person chooses to debate the question of the existence or possibility of this perfect, eternal God, then it is simply a different debate.

justsumguy

02 Aug 2008 17:33

Comment

Well, if you’re going in the direction I think you’re going with this, though I could be wrong on that assumption, the problem then becomes the Bible’s validity. What reasons do we have to assume that the Bible is accurate when describing this god’s intentions or wants? I mean, we don’t even really know who actually wrote the Bible. I would think that not knowing something would be more of a reason to be cautious about its validity, not the other way around. Not that the Bible isn't accurate on some points, it's just that there's no plausible reason, in my opinion, to believe something is correct on an issue without even bothering to check on how this something came to the "correct" conclusion in the first place. The only way to assume we know anything about this god’s wants or needs in this case is to make the assumption that Biblical scripture is accurate when describing such, which is something I’m not prepared to do without sufficient evidence for the idea’s favor (not even for the sake of the argument).

Comment

First off, you bring up a great point that explains why so many debates are corrupt and pointless.

It would be like me, going onto a Harry Potter thread, and refusing to accept the Harry Potter books as the basis for the arguments revolving aroung Harry Potter. I'm sorry, but that is ludicrous.

As for the Bible, don't make the mistake that I accept it because of the stereo-typical reasons the debunkers always use. And don't think I haven't studied to a pretty high level of acceptable education on the subject. I can debate the Bible as well as any subject.

More food for thought...what I know of the perfect, eternal God exists without the Bible. Keep it in mind when discussing with me. I am a part of no religion.

I am not trying to be threatening. I ask you to consider all my posts on the different threads and see all the things we agree on. And pay attention to what we disagree on.

I have no problem with not believing in the Bible. I have no problem with not believing in it's or any other god. But the debate stops there.

Any further debate with non-believers is ludicrous. It is tiresome when seemingly intelligent people insist on arguing issues whose foundations they do not believe.

There is a distict difference with not believing in something and disagreeing with it.

Disagreeing with points about something you don't believe in is silly.

I have slammed religion on this site much more than I have slammed non-religion.

But there is little difference between the silly dogmatic religious arguments so often used by the religious and the silly arguing of things whose basis are not believed in by the so-called open-minded.

Anyway, I believe God created us in His own image and wants us to reason with him and be one with him. This is based on my reading of the Bible and it fits with my criteria of a perfect, eternal God. Which to finally answer your question....is defined many ways by my wants and needs, along with my perception of others wants and needs.

Comment

Lol....
You would obviously have to look into the things which give God pleasure.

Scorpion likes to write one thing in the title of debates and something else in the description. Makes for more responses ; ).

God may derive pleasure from the fact that Smito left a chance that God could possibly exist.

My reading of the Bible suggests God created humans to be one with God. The older English definitions of worship would suggest worthiness, respect. I can see God wanting us to count his creation of us at the apparent risk of heaven as being worthy and I can see God wanting us to respect God and all other things.

But ultimately, I believe God created us to be one with God. More importantly, I believe Gods pleasure is to love.

Whatever the ties to sex...I believe that all manifestations of love will ultimately be shared in their purest forms.

And yes...if I didn't fully trust God to make me perfect, I would be deeply concerned about going to Heaven and being surrounded by perfect women. I know I would screw that up.

OK....I left the doors open on that one. Lol

justsumguy

02 Aug 2008 15:32

7 Comments

i wish god existed but there's no evidence he does and thus its against me to believe he does. Also what do you mean to be one with god? i fail to understand

Smito

02 Aug 2008 16:55

Comment

I have no problem with a person not believing in god. I have a problem when it is presented as not being a possibility or unreasonable. In your posts on this issue you haven't made any such claims. No problem here.

There are obviously inherent problems for me to explain what I mean with "one with God" to someone who doesn't believe in God. Not so much because of the concept, more due to definition. The word god means many different things.

The definition I am using is a perfect, eternal, personal God. When I say perfect, I mean perfect for you as well as me. If I was trying to get you to believe in this God, it would be based on your criteria of perfect. You may not believe in perfect. Again, this creates a problem.

By "one with god" I mean being one with a personal, perfect eternity. I believe that when we leave this temporal universe, we enter the true reality, perfect eternity. At that time (not really any such thing as time but I'm limited to  temporal definitions) we become one with it and at the same "time" find ourselves in the ultimate form of individual freedom.

I know it sounds like a pipe dream, but if  I'm going to believe in something, I'm going for the best something. Seems like the most reasonable thing to me.

Comment

Smito, I totally agree with your comment. I don't see anything perfect either. There is no temporal evidence of perfect.

Interesting though...the Bible has a definition of faith in it...(don't ask me why it has been ignored)

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If you notice, faith is described as substance and evidence. Granted they are attached to hoped for and not seen.

Science has not proven there is perfect eternal behind the big bang. I believe the scientific evidence is massive that it is. Not just astro-physics but all science.

I also believe we are eternal. I have no problem with associating that with the "hoped for" portion. At the same time. there is much reason behind my belief of us being eternal.

While you certainly don't have to believe in these things....and i don't think you are being unreasonable...it would be a mistake to say I am being unreasonable. Just because it's reasonable, doesn't mean we should believe in it. But we should try to understand each others reason.

Anyway, I think the only thing perfect here is the thing that is you that we can't see. Evidence suggests to me, that you are more complex and larger than the universe. Science can see within a second of the big bang and how much does it know about you? No comparison. So as crazy as what I say sounds....I have reason.

Comment

Maybe if he existed.

Smito

02 Aug 2008 14:37

Add a Comment

Sign In