A possessive God: Does he demand worship, or do we create him in our image?

A possessive God: does he demand worship, or do we create him in our image?

Either you accept him or he rejects you. The dilemma that opens the issue sums up much of the unease of anyone trying to reconcile an almighty creator with the idea that this creator would demand attention. The crux of the debate was not only whether God exists, but whether a perfect being can also be possessive. And that is where the mess begins.

The first move is to deny that he needs it. A perfect being needs nothing; needing worship would be, precisely, an imperfection. "The creator simply Is," sums up one of the most repeated positions: he does not require you to approve of him, or to be on his side. Worship, in that framework, would be a human addition, not a divine demand. And if he needed something, he would cease to be perfect the very instant he asked for it.

## The god who demands trinc and punishes those who ignore him

Against that, the counterblow is to cite the texts. Some argue that the Jewish God wants to be worshipped, that Allah wants to be worshipped, and that the Christian God, in a more sophisticated version, does not impose it but does condemn those who do not trinc him. The conclusion, in a mocking tone, is that each tradition looks out for itself and all of them want trinc.

The argument leans on the Old and New Testaments as if they were two different deities. Someone even says that the one in the Bible was called "God" because extraterrestrial was not yet in the vocabulary. It is not an academic thesis, but it organizes a widespread intuition: that of a god who behaves like someone who blocks anyone who does not pay attention to him.

## Does free will exist, or does the brain decide before you do?

The other major front is free will, because without it the idea of a god who demands or punishes collapses on its own. One side argues that the entire universe is a chain of causes and effects and that, therefore, freedom is an illusion: the decision only seems yours because you do not perceive the prior causal factors. The pessimistic scenario leaves no room: if everything is determined, there is no guilt or merit to distribute.

The harshest version appeals to neuroscience. It is repeated that it is scientifically proven that the unconscious brain chooses up to seven seconds before you become aware of the choice. If that were true, there could be no condemnation here. And yet the one who claims it says he has experienced two of those gods, which leaves the argument in a strange place: it denies freedom and at the same time takes a personal relationship with the divine as certain.

## Creating God in man's image and likeness

The most repeated accusation against popular theologies is that they do the work backwards: instead of accepting that man is made in God's image, our defects are pinned on the creator. Needs, jealousy, a craving for applause. A David is not Michelangelo, and confusing one with the other would be the basic error of almost all disputes.

There is a hypothesis that goes a step further: if God were absolutely perfect, why would he create? Why not remain in his silence and stillness? Creation, in that reading, points to a certain instability, to the need for a mirror in which to look at himself. And if the reflection is flawed, so is the original. It is the suspicion that behind the throne there is more narcissism than omnipotence.

## The world as purgatory and the demiurge

A more esoteric current separates the true creator from this world. It describes it as a place of passage, almost a filter of souls, governed not by the good god but by a demiurge. Others speak directly of a principality of evil. The idea is centuries old, but it returns every time the present becomes an uphill climb.

To this is added a pessimistic reading: according to one of the participants, no economic, ideological or religious system has managed to eliminate poverty, inequality or crime. From there to nihilism is one step, and several take it without hesitation. The quote "God does not play dice" even appears to settle a problem that remains open.

## A debate without closure

No one moves anyone. Whoever defends a god who does not need worship still does not explain where the texts that demand it come from. Whoever cites them does not clarify why a perfect being would set up such a system of rewards and punishments. And free will, the cornerstone of everything, remains up in the air, halfway between causality and faith.

That is where the matter gets stuck. With the same question that peine it: if we truly depend on such a being, why do we keep the option of saying no?