TOS - Who Mourns for Adonais?

[CrypticMirror]

And why does a god need to be omniscient, omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent to be worthy of worship? A god only needs to be wise enough and powerful enough to answer your prayers.

So Santa Claus is a god? If the federal government answers your prayers does that make the president a god?

The only thing worthy of worship is perfection. Anything less is just a space wizard.

Neither Santa Claus nor the federal government traditionally demand worship,

Santa does. You have to be good, because he has got a list and he checks it twice. You have to leave an offering of a whisky/brandy/glass of milk and a mince pie/cookie/timtam out for him [depending on your region] and a carrot or a turnip for Rudolph; all if you want presents and not a lump of coal[or worse, depending on region again]. And you have to believe in him, naughty boys and girls who don't believe don't get magical Christmases. By any reasonable measure, Santa is a deity and he wants you to believe in him and make offering to him.

[TGLS]

Neither Santa Claus nor the federal government traditionally demand worship, so it's a moot point.

Well, CrypticMirror did Santa so...

The federal government doesn't demand worship, no. It's part of the American tenets of faith; believing what you want to believe is acceptable. On the other hand, many expect people to remain quiet during the anthem and respect the troops. Burning the flag, calling the constitution a joke, and calling troops losers doesn't win you points with anyone. Civic religion is taken very seriously by some.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Religion for Breakfast actually has a s video about whether the American Flag is a religious symbol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abr-aTp7uhI

But that's not the real question here. JL Stinger has offered counter-examples but hasn't actually answered my question. Why does a god need to be the undisputed supreme power of the entire cosmos to be worthy of worship?

[Beastro]

IIRC, it's worth noting that the Ancient perspective on worship had more akin to service than worship as we know it today.

It was very much you served a particular god and got something back from good service, which in the pagan outlook was one of the big reasons for worship (the other to appease potential fickle wrath).

So yes, both Santa and any government require worship in some sense - this is the essence of "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Why does a god need to be the undisputed supreme power of the entire cosmos to be worthy of worship?

Because he's operating from the culturally Christian perspective modernist/secular society still maintains that holds a fundamentally monotheistic.

The pagan viewpoint of gods as aspectual representations of the world around us who must be bargained and placated was the predominant one, but not longer is. The assumption in people's minds ,at least in the West, is that diety must be transcendent over creation even if those people are multigenerational irreligous ones.

This is where I've come to hold the atheist viewpoint in the West more in terms of an extreme Protestantism - diety has become so sacred that even the ultimate transcendent being is enough to be worthy of worship.

[pilight]

The only thing worthy of worship is perfection.

Didn't expect to see someone embracing the philosophy of the Borg

[Fianna]

Re: Santa:

I wouldn't call the Santa traditions worship. Yes, you need to be a good if you want Santa to bring you presents, but that doesn't require any veneration of or devotion to Santa himself, nor does it require that your good deeds be done in Santa's name. As long as you're good, even if you've never thought about Santa once, he'll still keep track of it and reward you.

I'd say it's more akin to how saying Bloody Mary's name is supposed to summon her ghost. You're not worshipping the ghost, just taking advantage of the fact that it will respond in a predictable way to a certain sequence of actions. For them to be your god, there'd need to be an element of supplication to the relationship, with you acknowledging them as your superior who is worthy of your prostration.

[Rocketboy1313]

The only thing worthy of worship is perfection. Anything less is just a space wizard.

This I think is the core argument of Thomas Aquinas.
The reasoning is a bit circular by modern standards but the idea was this
In order for something to be "perfect" it must exist.
God is perfect.
Ergo, God Exists.

The corollary being this,
God is the only thing that is perfect.

So you don't end up with perfect people or perfect places.

[JL_Stinger]

Suppose there are beings out there who control the weather, who can make you or anyone else fall in or out of love at will, or who will have eternal dominion over your soul upon your death. And these beings make it known that they want people to worship them, sing their praises, and offer them sacrifices. In that scenario, would you want these beings to get pissed at you?

Spoken like a coward and a sychophant.

Why? What's wrong with a space wizard? Why do you demand total omnipotence?

If you worship powerful beings simply for being powerful then the only sensible thing is to change allegiances whenever a more powerful being comes along.

Which is the same kind of logic that justifies divorcing your spouse whenever you meet someone else who is more attractive than they are.

The only thing worthy of worship is perfection.

Didn't expect to see someone embracing the philosophy of the Borg

The Borg are not perfect; that is why they attempt assimilation.
Anything perfect would be immune to assimilation.
Therefore the Borg cannot achieve perfection through assimilation.
Ergo, the Borg's existence is futile.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

If you worship powerful beings simply for being powerful then the only sensible thing is to change allegiances whenever a more powerful being comes along.

Which is the same kind of logic that justifies divorcing your spouse whenever you meet someone else who is more attractive than they are.

I beg your pardon?

Why does a being need to be completely and utterly powerful? Why isn't it enough to worship a being who gives you good harvest, good health, and/or artistic inspiration? Why do I need to get my every need in life from one all-powerful god?

[JL_Stinger]

If you worship powerful beings simply for being powerful then the only sensible thing is to change allegiances whenever a more powerful being comes along.

Which is the same kind of logic that justifies divorcing your spouse whenever you meet someone else who is more attractive than they are.

I beg your pardon?

Why does a being need to be completely and utterly powerful? Why isn't it enough to worship a being who gives you good harvest, good health, and/or artistic inspiration? Why do I need to get my every need in life from one all-powerful god?

Lets say you're worshiping a "god" that gives you artistic inspiration.

Now another "god" comes along and says "No, you must worship me instead. But if you do I will give you better artistic inspiration than your old god."

Under your system it would be stupid to remain loyal to the old god when the new god is better.

Now you might say "But there's only one god of artistic inspiration."

To which I say: why? Why would there only be one god of a particular aspect?

That's why the need for only the God and not a god. There can't be someone new, more powerful, or otherwise better.

I will note that some Christians pray to Jesus and some, particularly Catholics, pray to specific saints. To which I say that is stupid. God does not need a middle man.