What does God want from us

An omnipotent God needs absolutely nothing from us. Based on God's indifference to unnecessary evil, I believe it has implications. There seems to be no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free will. So if you accept God does not care one way or other whether we burn in Hell or make it through the gates of Heaven, then what exactly would an omnipotent God want from us?

Lately I've been resonating with the idea that our God is more pantheistic in nature:

"Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god."

So if you accept the idea of pantheistic type God, then maybe we could use ourselves as a mirror in determining what is good and moral. Assume for moment our purpose for existing is so our infinite omnipotent God can experience the thrill of having limitations by existentially sharing our experiences of joys, frustrations, and miseries. So what is good and moral would be determined by what makes us feel good. What gives us enthusiasm is what God wants us to do.

The problem with this idea is I have heard the people who worship a anthropomorphic-judgmental-God will say, "Oh, so if it feels good do it." There lies the edge. I think what we have to incorporated the golden rule of morality into the idea. That is, what feels good cannot be at the expense of someone else's misery. In it's raw form, there is huge distinction between consensual sex and rape. One requires having a respect for someone else's personal boundaries and desires. And the other is clearly an act of evil.

Of course, a non-pantheistic God is much more popular. People worship and love a anthropomorphic-judgmental-God. People are vengeful by nature and take great pleasure in the idea that there will be justice in the afterlife. I just don't think that is true. An omnipotent God, again, needs absolutely nothing from us so I do not believe such a God would be vengeful. I think people who commit the most evil acts are allowed through the gates of Heaven to experience eternal bliss regardless of our personal desire for revenge.

I have heard people claim their vengeful anthropomorphic-judgmental-God is also a God of love. I just don't see how those two can coexist at the same time. Either God is loving and accepting of everything about our human nature and its results or He is not. It seems to make more sense to me that an omnipotent God would allow everyone through the gates of Heaven to experience eternal bliss regardless of our earthly sins. I think the desire for revenge is a petty human emotion. Many of us do not have control over the menu of our choices. Sometimes we are force to choose from a set of choices where all the choices are immoral and evil to some degree. I think unless we are given omnipotent powers, in many ways, we do not have as much free-will as our delusional desires would have us think.

Our earthly sins are more important in the near term to the people who are around us. What if the only way you can achieve salvation is not from God but by getting forgiveness from the people we have sin against? That would make for an interesting morality. Say the only way you can achieve absolution is by making amends. Just saying some words is just not good enough. You have to get other people to forgive you. If you do not get people to forgive you then you will not suffer in the hereafter, but even worse, you will suffer right now in this life! Hell is here on earth now created by our own choosing.

I think the people who claim you have to say certain words in a certain order or you will burn in Hell are ignoring the way we experience God. How is saying words in a certain way any different than pagan sacrifices around the time of Jesus. The idea that certain actions in relationship to God may matter is questionable. Having a relationship to God is easy. Fixing our relationships with other people is hard. People are generally fat and lazy. Most people avoid pain and seek pleasure. I think taking the easy way out to avoid personal responsibility is what most people tend to do. Taking the easy way out is missing the point of having morality. Having morality is tightly tied to personal responsibility in my opinion.

Other than our imaginary delusions, there is no evidence supporting the idea that God is participating directly in our lives. Everyone I've ever heard say otherwise will claim some sequence of personal experiences is the evidence. Based on God's consistent indifference, I think each of us is more responsible for our own salvation. God sees us through our own reflection or introspection of our own character. I don't think attending church or saying certain words will change anything with regards to our own personal responsibility.

A pantheistic type God knows all, sees all, and shares our experiences. Many of the religious types here will probably say something, "that's not what the Bible says." It's okay, I get it. Some people must be told what to think. It's just the way they are.

a reply to: dfnj2015

HE wants us to suffer A LOT for putting His Boy on a cross and torturing Him to death.

I don't blame HIM. Suffer on!

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think it can be boiled down into our own human family relationships ...the "why" part that is

a reply to: dfnj2015

Maybe to stop projecting concepts at a concept that is undefined until ones grasping tries to define it instead of just be?

That what the I am what I am business is... meaning it pointless to project empty onto empty and make it something. It is in fact made something... exactly the something one tries to project it as lol oneself as a mirror... but yet like a mirror it can never be what is projecting it. But nothing reflecting nothing is something; the very nature of being itself as pure awareness.

When is seeing not seeing? When seeing is occuring anything else arising with the seen makes one blind to where seeing then stops. What occurs when that seeing stops? Bias discrimination of what is seen, the distortion of it's true nature for one of make believe not even occuring just held unreal... so what occurs in that blindness? It is like holding up an image on top of an image and taking the fake image as truth or reality.

The I am ceases to be unchanged when seen, it becomes a YOU. In such a manner the I am is immediately lost... and unreality replaces reality. Ignorance and delusion replaces truth.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Why not just let go of the divinity aspect and accept the universe as a natural event? I have never heard a concept or even a property of a god that makes any sense, so why try so hard to make it fit into the world which we can observe?

To love each other?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
An omnipotent God needs absolutely nothing from us.

That is absolutely true, but it says nothing at all about what he wants. "Needing" and "wanting" are different things.
If you are really interested in knowing what he wants, it might be worth asking him.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Nothing, he doesn't exist

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: dfnj2015

Why not just let go of the divinity aspect and accept the universe as a natural event? I have never heard a concept or even a property of a god that makes any sense, so why try so hard to make it fit into the world which we can observe?

This is very good well thought out and rational response. I totally get the atheist position. And there is absolutely no way I can answer your questions for you in such a way that you would go, "wow, that is rational, logical, and makes perfect sense."

I think purpose of religion is to answer the four great existential questions:

1. Who am I?
2. Why am here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me after I die?

Religion is supposed to provide a context for which we live a meaningful life. Since I cannot answer your questions in an acceptable way the only thing I can say is along these lines. We all know on the cosmic timescale our lives are meaningless. And if it is all meaningless, then it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. If you accept that it is all meaningless, then it makes no difference if you make a choice to have faith. I choose to have faith based on no reason. I choose to believe in God not because I have evidence. If I had evidence, then it would be a "decision" and not a "choice" to believe in God.

What you are really asking is can I provide you evidence to support your decision to believe God. I have none. All I have is the irrational choice and delusion that God exists to offer you. I am okay if you choose either way. If you choose to be an atheist, I would still support my own personal golden rule morality with you and not treat you any differently because you are atheist. Unfortunately, many people draw hard distinctions between the chosen people and those who are not.

If you are one of those people who think religion is the reasons for all the wars and unnecessary evil in the world I would just like to point out something. If religion did not exist at all in any form, there would be just as many wars and acts of unnecessary evil because human nature would still be the same.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: dfnj2015
An omnipotent God needs absolutely nothing from us.

That is absolutely true, but it says nothing at all about what he wants. "Needing" and "wanting" are different things.
If you are really interested in knowing what he wants, it might be worth asking him.

I'm pretty much 100% sure you do not speak for Him!

a reply to: DISRAELI

Giving such a concept gender is also a projection on the undefined. Undefined does not mean un-named of course... however no name ever bares any absolute essence in an appearance unless ageed that it does. Like Gato or Cat does not cease it being just what it appears as even if you were to call that appearance a dog... makes no difference.

We're basically AI robots. This Universe/dimension is just a beta testing ground for AI robots. The AI robots that act acceptably in this test dimension will be allowed into the "real dimension". The AI robots that act unacceptably in this test dimension will be sent to the scrap pile. The AI robots that disdain and/or refuse to serve the other creations in the "real dimension" are deemed too dangerous and are also banished to the trash pile. After all, humans would also scrap an AI program that hated or refused to serve its human creators.

In short, we're AI robots that have been given a chance to show our true colors in a test dimension. Our behavior here will determine if we'll be allowed into the real dimension or sent to the scrap pile.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
We're basically AI robots. This Universe/dimension is just a beta testing ground for AI robots. The AI robots that act acceptably in this test dimension will be allowed into the "real dimension". The AI robots that act unacceptably in this test dimension will be sent to the scrap pile. The AI robots that disdain and/or refuse to serve the other creations in the "real dimension" are deemed too dangerous and are also banished to the trash pile. After all, humans would also scrap an AI program that hated or refused to serve its human creators.

I think human beings are about as far from AI robots as you can get. Some people are programmed just to make decisions out of fear. But human beings have the choice to do things counter to our programming. AI robots do not have the same luxury.

I read somewhere that human beings are the only animal on the planet that helps other members of the species give birth. There's something really beautiful and profound about this fact.

he wants about tree fiddy

originally posted by: SaturnFX
he wants about tree fiddy

"I'm giving you no tree fiddy!"

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think a natural universe answers all of these questions with profound significance.

1) who am i?

I am the culmination of millions of generations of my family line. Every one of my ancestors succeded in reproducing and creating the next generation. I am related to every other living thing on this planet. If this is not profound enough to make you feel important and give some meaning to your life, perhaps you are just to hard to impress.


2)why am i here?

You get to choose what your life means. You get to choose what you do with your life. There is no hidden agenda waiting for you to figure it all out. You get to choose. What could possibly be better than that?


3) what does it all mean?

It is chemestry, what does it mean when i put a chunk of sodium into a beaker of water? Nothing. It is just a chemical reaction. Luckily we have developed our intelect far enough that we can discern science from fantasy and opinion. We can create art that amazes and leaves us speechless. Now we have technologies that make life more pleasant and allow us to explore the world and our universe in ways that other animals cannot fathom. That seems pretty meaningful.

4) what will happen when we die?


Well, nobody knows, and no religion does either. Probably the same thing that happens when a mouse or a plant dies. Nobody invents special heavens for dead houseplants do they? Although we are related and made from nearly the exact same things. If we do find out, and it is something other than plain ole death, it will be figured out by a person who puts science above fantasy and opinion.

I would say (assuming the existence of a supreme being) that God doesn't really want anything. I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe that mankind has been "interfered with" or manipulated by outside forces in any way. So really, any perception of good or evil seems to be in our heads. Children's stories aside, does a lion take pause and consider the moral implications of killing it's prey? No! It's hungry and it's instinct tells it that the meat of a wildebeest is a great way to solve that problem. Now, we can reason a lot better than the lion. We have language and constantly evolving social boundaries. I think that confuses us sometimes. There are dozens of world religions that each think their way is right, but they all seem to adhere to general principles in relation to things that hurt society as a whole. Murder is bad, theft is bad, don't sleep with your friend's wife, etc. Most of that stuff is taken care of today with modern legal systems. I don't think that God has communicated anything to us in relation to morality, this is all stuff we thought up and figured out ourselves. So... Since we have had no real tangible communication from God (at least in modern times), I think it's impossible to speculate what such a being might "want" from us. I think the best we can do is just try to be good people and hope we have enough points at the end to be on the high score list.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I like that you actually think for yourself. Most people prefer not to think about these questions because it hurts most people's heads. I have no criticisms of your answers. I do not believe any of these questions have an absolutely right or wrong answer.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

If that is what you believe... best to deprogram and become open source. Many have done such finding the way to freedom even before the concept of AI. Of course those that would want to possess a mere form as their own for greedy or hateful purposes? After such has ended for oneself... would be a diservice to humanity to allow such a thing.

The programming itself is best seen as possession anyhow; as none of the concepts one holds onto as a self are even them at all. Just free ammunition to shoot everything not seen as self down in some idea of superiority instead of equanimity.


Dependent arising... thats all thought is. For it to even be there it has to be held for it to arise; even if that holding is not a self but someone else doing the holding. Cease to hold it; and then what does it depend on to arise? Not holding onto any of it or anyone really pisses those holding on instead off to be honest.

But expectation, assumption and silly ideas of ownership or control of anyone or anything other than oneself is a sickness of humanity and it is all simply based in fear and ignorance. If that fear and ignorance has ended being held by anything that could be percieved as a self; then where does such lay? Lol it is like someone saying I want to watch blah blah blah and pulling out a DVD well there it is, but how many others can experience that well there it is on their player? Of course they will experience it exactly how they experience it in doing so... even though that experience of it? Wholly open and just simply is what it is... how someone feels about it does not make it that except to one person the one experiencing it, but just one person does not experience it so just how many are experiencing the same thing?

None! Only in name can they say they are experiencing the same thing.

Like when Socrates said hey for all we know? We don't know a damned thing. Those disagreeing said the hell we don't... he persisted no you don't and they wanted to kill him over it. Sure they knew something... only what they agreed to in a conspiracy as existing or real as knowledge, otherwise poof non-existant. Socrates realized enlightenment; however trying to point at what cannot be grasped by any means just realized? It meant his death.

The curious thing? That sort of thing has occured so very many times in human history, we will kill the crap out of them getting so pissed off... but then later realize their mistake oops our bad. We saw it as a threat being so ignorant to what the hell you sort of people have been pointing at, and wigged out.

Does that absolve it in any way? Nope. What is done is done; and the only way to resurect Socrates and others that have realized such... it to realize it oneself. Pointing optional, although there arises an almost compulsion to do so simply because whether alive or dead at that point makes no difference... as what is being pointed at is the same and eternal and unchangible regardless of form or time or place.

That's what transmission of the lamp is all about no matter the candle; a flame, is a flame. So race, gender, sexuality, heritage, path walked there etc. truth remains truth when such a thing occurs. Making the is what it is fit the I am that cannot grasped either, as they are one and the same.

So even the concept of being an AI makes no difference... in the realization of such.

a reply to: SaturnFX

"That ain't no god, thats the damned ole locked ness monster"