Forums → WEPR → Worship: what would it take?

Ever been up Mount Olympus where they're supposed to live? Anyone ever been killed for doing so as prescribed by the mythology? Didn't think so.

Obviously you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

I think that's a very dubious assertion.

You're wrong, what can I say? Technological growth has sprouted, morality has grown, as has independency, present problems with social and economic life have been present before - on even worse scales, it's objectively getting better.

No. Sacrifice if you know you're going to get something of higher value than what you sacrificed out of it.

Depending on the sacrifice you could quite easily be sacrificing your morality. What you said was quite shallow.

Much easier said than done. Try going on a civil rights protest in any of the nations where currently none exist and see how far it gets you. If we can't even stand up to evil governments, how on earth could you stand up to an evil God?

If you stand against it you win, it's that simple.

No, I'm not saying you actually win, but you don't lose freedom or independence.

No, the Greek Gods don't exist because they named their home place which is clearly devoid of the Gods. They made the mistake of making their existence empirically testable.

They made the right decision of making their existence empirically testable.

By using his Godly powers...

How does that come about?

And I don't think asking people about the latter is a particularly insightful look at the human psyche.

Go on.

How humans understand the concept of God and how humans would like a hypothetical God to behave in order to justify worshipping them are two very different things.

Well, firstly, there should be no "the" i nthat sentence, there are different concepts people follow and this thread shows that.

With my thinking? This is the world we live in. Billions of people suffer every day just to get enough to eat and drink. Poverty aside, think of all the humanitarian crises there are occurring around the globe. I don't know what planet you live on, but it sure would be nice to move there.

I'm more aware of the bull**** going on than most of the people I know - and that's the **** problem. Being whiny and tolerent of those problems is the worst thing you could do.

Oh, and it's Mars.

That's easy for us to say sitting in a nice comfy first world country. For billions of people their only goal is to stay alive. Utopia doesn't imply that there is nothing to do. Humans are still the most innovative animals ever to have walked the earth. People would still challenge themselves and others, merely in a world free of suffering.

Oh, but with all the humanitarian crisis', humans unable to fix their own problems and the like, saying that is pretty retarded. Quit with the "billions of people dying of food shortage and etc", you're not gonna get anywhere, it's another subject entirely.

I mean, fixing their own problems is one thing... pushing FURTHER? Mate, either you're going against your words or you're an idiot.

It seems like you've ignored pretty much the whole of human history up until the rise of Republican democracy, and even after that. Time and time again, people do what it takes to survive, even if living under tyrannical conditions. Dying for your beliefs is noble, but pointless, especially if this tyrant is a God who can presumably not be overthrown due to his Godliness.

They're weak. I didn't ignore jack, it's just that the instinct to survive is so strong and the moral strength in people is so weak. What's the point of living under a tyrant who can kill you in a heartbeat? I'm not even targetting the victims and calling them weak to suit my argument - people are only going to get mentally stronger the further time goes on, but it's the stupid "toughie" attitude which only hinders this sort of growth.

Again, morals are the barometer of what people think is acceptable behaviour within one society. Moral standards change depending on culture. You can't follow the perfect moral code, because there isn't one. It's an entirely subjective, artificial concept.

Bull. There are such simplistic things that moral can be based on, logic, being one. Culture does not dictate morality, otherwise you'd call it Law, which is in no way correct in its morality. It's incredibly difficult to stress how rediculous an assumption that is - if morality is culture based, then no individuality is based on it, and thus it is not YOUR beliefs. The moral standards is what each individual sets, and the Law should be based more on that than itself. Finding the perfect moral code is situational but certainly possible.

- H

Obviously you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

Obviously you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Technological growth has sprouted,

Technology has helped us to survive, but it hasn't yet solved the problem of the energy crisis that threatens to destroy us in the medium term.

morality has grown

Morality isn't something you can measure. Societies have always had standards they perceived to be morally acceptable.

independency

A perfect example of your flawed thinking on morals. Independence is *shock horror* not always highly valued in every culture.

present problems with social and economic life have been present before - on even worse scales, it's objectively getting better.

For every area where there has been improvement, there are new problems which have been created which did not exist hundreds of years ago. And in fact, inequality has increased massively in the past few decades, with disastrous consequences for the poor, especially in the third world.

Depending on the sacrifice you could quite easily be sacrificing your morality. What you said was quite shallow.

Not really, if you look at my original explanation where I actually stated I wouldn't sacrifice. Silly me to assume you'd bother reading it and would instead call me shallow.

No, I'm not saying you actually win, but you don't lose freedom or independence.

Of course you do. If you protest in a country like China they will lock you up, or worse, losing you both your freedom and independence.

They made the right decision of making their existence empirically testable.

Really they didn't make any decision at all since they don't exist, since we've been up Olympus, and they're not there.

How does that come about?

Why on Earth are you asking me in a thread which stipulates in the OP that in a hypothetical situation, what kind of God would you worship and why, how God comes about. It's unrelated and irrelevant. He comes about because in my hypothetical situation, he comes about.

Well, firstly, there should be no "the" i nthat sentence, there are different concepts people follow and this thread shows that.

Semantics semantics. You haven't answered my question.

Being whiny and tolerent of those problems is the worst thing you could do.

Another personal attack. Cheers, you seem like a top bloke. And considering in my posts I have made it clear that a God who does not intervene to ease suffering is a **** is hardly tolerant or indicative of passive agreement of the status quo.

Quit with the "billions of people dying of food shortage and etc", you're not gonna get anywhere, it's another subject entirely.

No it isn't. We're talking about utopia. How is poverty in the third world not relevant to that discussion?

I mean, fixing their own problems is one thing... pushing FURTHER? Mate, either you're going against your words or you're an idiot.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

What's the point of living under a tyrant who can kill you in a heartbeat?

What's the point of dying under a tyrant for your cause only to fail to change anything?

I'm not even targetting the victims and calling them weak to suit my argument

They're weak. I didn't ignore jack, it's just that the instinct to survive is so strong and the moral strength in people is so weak.

Yes you are.

people are only going to get mentally stronger the further time goes on,

Why? Any reasons you think why this might occur?

but it's the stupid "toughie" attitude which only hinders this sort of growth.

Yeah, stupid toughies, wanting to live and minimise suffering for themselves and their families. Such fools. I don't know how they sleep at night.

There are such simplistic things that moral can be based on, logic, being one.

Logic is often contradictory to morality. It's often moral to be charitable, yet it's rarely rationale when thinking of one's own personal gain.

Culture does not dictate morality, otherwise you'd call it Law,

No you wouldn't. The law is imposed by the state. States are often out of tune with a country's moral sympathies, especially considering in most countries, many important laws were written hundreds of years ago.

if morality is culture based, then no individuality is based on it, and thus it is not YOUR beliefs.

The morality of a society reflects the sum of the ethics of the individuals within it. Your ethics are your beliefs.

The moral standards is what each individual sets, and the Law should be based more on that than itself.

How could the law possibly reflect every individuals ethical code?

Finding the perfect moral code is situational but certainly possible.

Finding the perfect moral code for a particular culture would be possible perhaps. Finding the perfect universal moral code is simply impossible. Not everyone around the world thinks in the same way, and agrees on what is and isn't acceptable.

Just look at the debate going on within Britain regarding Sharia Law as one example. Some Muslim communities request to try Muslims according to Sharia law, not state law which differs massively on trial methods and punishment due to the cultural difference. How on earth can the two be reconciled, let alone all the different cultures of the globe?

Obviously you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Play the game you please, brutha, I've lost interest in this a while ago.

Morality isn't something you can measure. Societies have always had standards they perceived to be morally acceptable.

Says you.

A perfect example of your flawed thinking on morals. Independence is *shock horror* not always highly valued in every culture.

Have you realized what I've been basically saying about culture? **** it. That's what.

For every area where there has been improvement, there are new problems which have been created which did not exist hundreds of years ago. And in fact, inequality has increased massively in the past few decades, with disastrous consequences for the poor, especially in the third world.

Mmhmm, mmhmm yeah. Well, consider the slavetrade. I mean, I know there is still slavery going on now, but inequality has gone the other way if anything and there is a whole other topic waiting at the end of the Third World Country.

Not really, if you look at my original explanation where I actually stated I wouldn't sacrifice. Silly me to assume you'd bother reading it and would instead call me shallow.

I didn't call you shallow, I called what you said, shallow. Misinterpretation. I must've missed it, but honestly you're not showing yourself out of what you're talking about, be more precise in what you're talking about.

Of course you do. If you protest in a country like China they will lock you up, or worse, losing you both your freedom and independence.

You fought and it's the best thing you can do. Of course I'm not saying you should bellow "Oh hell no!" and do it in the light of day, but making a stand is what matters.

Really they didn't make any decision at all since they don't exist, since we've been up Olympus, and they're not there.

The Greeks, then? It doesn't matter, it was perceived that they were indeed real on this world and easy to find, we didn't find them, they are disproven - done, mythology is myth and religion, not baring the same traits is still considered reality for a lot of people.

Why on Earth are you asking me in a thread which stipulates in the OP that in a hypothetical situation, what kind of God would you worship and why, how God comes about. It's unrelated and irrelevant. He comes about because in my hypothetical situation, he comes about.

Well you know, being hypothetical doesn't mean it has to be unreasonable. I haven't gone into depth about my hypothetical situation but I'm happy to spew a bunch of bull to sate anyones need to hear a near-possible reason of it actually happening (or more accurately, "happened&quot.

Semantics semantics. You haven't answered my question.

Your question was flawed. Repeat it and I'll do what I can to answer.

Another personal attack. Cheers, you seem like a top bloke. And considering in my posts I have made it clear that a God who does not intervene to ease suffering is a **** is hardly tolerant or indicative of passive agreement of the status quo.

You're aware that your attitude posed NO positive feedback nor any friendly debate? Also, talking about a God not doing it doesn't mean jack - they are, most probably, NOT real. But to be honest, I'm going to throw that aside - because what I saw in your statement was a sharp and sly attempt to put severe blame on me for something you pretty obviously (or obviously seemed) done. Your debates have been this "tough guy" character which in reality helps NO ONE on these matters.

No it isn't. We're talking about utopia. How is poverty in the third world not relevant to that discussion?

No, YOU'RE talking about Utopia. Read my **** assessment of what I'd like my world to be.

What's the point of dying under a tyrant for your cause only to fail to change anything?

If it's an all-knowing all powerful God then hell yes, I'd rather die without changing anything, sure, I'd prefer have someone realize what I'm talking about - even more to have people side with me. But in the end the meaning of life would be to serve him if a God is such a tyrant, and thus it mays well account to slavery - I'd be putting a hole in his endless wallet, but at least I'd have nothing to worry about, even if I went to Hell. Not to mention, this is again hypothetical - tyrannical God, can I say I would've been raised the same if I'd been raised in that situation? Of course not.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

It's what you was talking about.

God who's either lazy or naive enough to think humans are going to solve their own problems.

That, and then I added in the rest - if they're unable to solve their own problems, as you so tolerantly pointed out (as you put the weight of thousands of peoples laziness on an all-powerful being who could effortlessly change that), then what makes you think they could go as far as develop further than what they know? Not "could", but rather "would".

Yes you are.

Be nice if you backed that up.

Why? Any reasons you think why this might occur?

Moral and technological progress is only going to test peoples mental capacity.

It really isn't a "might" situation, as long as at least one of those subjects persist to grow (or both, or another not yet mentioned), then people will end up becoming mentally stronger, even if they don't realize it.

Yeah, stupid toughies, wanting to live and minimise suffering for themselves and their families. Such fools. I don't know how they sleep at night.

Minimize suffering? Says the guy who'd live under a tyrannical God if he had to? Quit the act, and properly respond to what I've said, you're putting on all this heat about the third world and herpa derp - it's politicial matter which I'm not going to bother going into since the debate of hypothetical situations wouldn't need to go that far.

Logic is often contradictory to morality. It's often moral to be charitable, yet it's rarely rationale when thinking of one's own personal gain.

No? Morality isn't about being nice, it's about being right. There is nothing wrong with keeping your stache of coin when the other person is homeless. That is the BASIC moral standing, since you're not doing a negative thing - only the lack of a positive one. When moral standards grow, however, it would be pretty obviously dickish to do such a thing, especially if the guy you know isn't a bad person.

No you wouldn't. The law is imposed by the state. States are often out of tune with a country's moral sympathies, especially considering in most countries, many important laws were written hundreds of years ago.

My bad. So going back to what my words were responding to:

Oh, quickly before I do, I'd just like to back up some other things I've said, now that I've been able to get the quotes:

With my thinking? This is the world we live in. Billions of people suffer every day just to get enough to eat and drink. Poverty aside, think of all the humanitarian crises there are occurring around the globe. I don't know what planet you live on, but it sure would be nice to move there.

1. Shows "tough guy" attitude, doesn't present how to help the situation, only a completely negative atmosphere.
2. Lack of respect - can't say I've delivered the same, but I know I usually would - not that my word means much to you, I'd imagine.

I'm more aware of the bull**** going on than most of the people I know - and that's the **** problem. Being whiny and tolerent of those problems is the worst thing you could do.

That's where I got that part from - maybe it was misinterpretation from my end, and I am sorry.

Dying for your beliefs is noble, but pointless, especially if this tyrant is a God who can presumably not be overthrown due to his Godliness.

Living like that is unreasonable, to say the least, it's where I got more of this "tough guy attitude", it shown a "Live with it" kind of thing which is bitterly angering, mostly due to the fact that many people I hear say it aren't of such a high calibre or with such sharp edges as you've been showing, FireFly.
And it is also where I came up with:

They're weak. I didn't ignore jack, it's just that the instinct to survive is so strong and the moral strength in people is so weak. What's the point of living under a tyrant who can kill you in a heartbeat? I'm not even targetting the victims and calling them weak to suit my argument - people are only going to get mentally stronger the further time goes on, but it's the stupid "toughie" attitude which only hinders this sort of growth.

I honestly did not target them, this is why I think moral and mental growth will quickly come through. I know the instinct to survive is exceptionally powerful but I would not be surprised if it is slowly overidden by peoples pureheart beliefs.

Again, morals are the barometer of what people think is acceptable behaviour within one society. Moral standards change depending on culture. You can't follow the perfect moral code, because there isn't one. It's an entirely subjective, artificial concept.

I don't think morality is based subjectively - I mean, it can be, and in some cases where the standard comes off the radar of "0" by so much (I'll explain), it does end up delving incredibly deep.

I think of morality, or rather the standard of it like a metre, if the standard of morality is 0, then there is essentially nothing wrong with it, but nothing right about it either, it's simple mathematics which may not be entirely accurate given specific situations, of which I would like an example where this "formula" does not work.
Positive actions = More than 0
Negative actions = Less than 0
Now, it's not a weighing scale, but rather it shows the balance of how morality is in this particular standard, since it is 0, you can see that no positive actions (such as the previous example of sharing that which is rightfully yours) are being made, whereas no negative ones (killing for money, theft, etc) are eiher. This is essentially a utopia of its own, and I know it goes much more complex, especially considering peoples morality could be quite quickly changed depending on the topic at hand.

Once it goes further and further away than 0, or even if different forms of morality come cropping up throughout the determination of how far it's progressed, it can end up being very subjective, but the BASIS usually remains the same. If you're being attacked by a stranger, are you in your right to defend yourself? Yes, it's a... I would say positive, but for the sake of having no argument I will call it "neutral", which is 0 in itself. The moral standard of self-defending person isn't necessarily right, defending yourself is natural and ultimately not defending yourself may not have been a suitable option, these things all need consideration and it is as I've said, obviously very difficult to think about. This is the reason I find it difficult to explain how it may NOT be subjective, because there are such a variety of individual cases and traits which could effect a fair ruling that this may be tainted - even unintentionally.

The logical part comes in... well, it's not even logic, in some ways. Morality is the logical defining of "right and wrong", in this kind of way, I did add "logic" unnecessarily I believe.

Back to the topic on hand.

No you wouldn't. The law is imposed by the state. States are often out of tune with a country's moral sympathies, especially considering in most countries, many important laws were written hundreds of years ago.

No real argument, I guess I was not thinking straight because I can, as stupid as it sounds, see where I am coming from when I say

Culture does not dictate morality, otherwise you'd call it Law,

Culture doesn't dictate morality, but I believe I do remember you saying something familiar to that. Particularly:

Societies have always had standards they perceived to be morally acceptable.

I feel I either explained what I meant wrong, or I misinterpreted again. My bad. I'd like to know what you mean by "morally acceptable", I mean, when does it come from disapproval to direct action taken against it?

The morality of a society reflects the sum of the ethics of the individuals within it.

Not sure what my argument against this would be (right now I'm second-guessing a lot of what I say), but I'm always thinking from a more "assertive" aspect, the world isn't perfect, I'm aware of that, but I'd rather address the issues and do everything in my power (that I have currently... which is minimal) to make it a better world, quite often the morality of a society in general is below the standard of 0 - not in all ways, but in some, at the least. It may not even be the general population, a select minority. I can't really say I'm one to judge, seeing this long long post I can only imagine that some of you people think that I'm not an outdoors guy - I enjoy being out, but it's not like I do it very often (at all). However, given that I am thinking about this, and that there's really no reason I should be (when you compare it to the general society as well), doesn't it shed some light on how bad some standards can be?

How could the law possibly reflect every individuals ethical code?

No idea. Honestly. I'd prefer the law require a set of "0" based moral decision making at the least, sounds stupid I know, but depending on the situation punishments may not be severe at all, I mean right now - seriously, I am NOT planning my own utopian city, all I'm saying is that depending on the situation the Law needs to adapt to it, and that I think it should be base "0", taking into account general human moral standards at the time, so that furthering moral progress can be done further. Of course people following "0" won't be punished, but I'd like to think it would be frowned upon by their culture.

The problem I see is what I've been talking about - independence but furthermore, actually WANTING this. I don't see why people would do this if they didn't see a need or benefit from doing it, and the benefit, really is just that there is "nothing" (literally) wrong with it. Furthering progress on a wanted scale wanted by the general population may not be their first goal, but I hope that it is indeed the case for many people alive now, or at least it would be if they weren't in such bad situations - correct?

Just look at the debate going on within Britain regarding Sharia Law as one example. Some Muslim communities request to try Muslims according to Sharia law, not state law which differs massively on trial methods and punishment due to the cultural difference. How on earth can the two be reconciled, let alone all the different cultures of the globe?

I'd like to know what your opinion is on this, personally I think "state law", whilst I don't agree with it, it makes sense that anyone in Britain suffers the same punishment. Would you ask a Muslim to take his shoes off before he enters your home and not someone following a different Religion (if any)?
That, and I'd like to say that those 2 aren't entirely similiar situations, but I feel the bottomline is - if you own the place, the same rules go for everyone (of course things like age etc should be considered, but right now we're talking about people who are pretty much the same in every meaningful way concerning this topic, and the main difference being their religion).

- H

Also now I've gone off tilt now, so half of the semi-aggressive things I've mentioned at the top half of the previous post, er... I'd rather rephrase.

Obviously you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

What was you trying to say?

Technology has helped us to survive, but it hasn't yet solved the problem of the energy crisis that threatens to destroy us in the medium term.

Medieval technology isn't too bad, sure, it's not what people would expect or prefer, and it will change the planet if we run out of our natural resources but I must say that the world will go to Hell if people let it, truthfully whether it will descend into chaos or ascend into... whatever, honestly, I don't know.

A perfect example of your flawed thinking on morals. Independence is *shock horror* not always highly valued in every culture.

Culture isn't my main concern right now, I know it's essentially the way humans live but I can't see how we're not accustomed to change. With the right presentation and the right state of thinking convincing people will only be as hard as their stubborness.

For every area where there has been improvement, there are new problems which have been created which did not exist hundreds of years ago. And in fact, inequality has increased massively in the past few decades, with disastrous consequences for the poor, especially in the third world.

There's not really much I can say about the inequality - where exactly did that come from? I can only see how it's gotten better, I'm aware of the slavetrades not present in the West now but nonetheless are you basing inequality on how far its taken, how many people do it by sheer numbers or how many people do it by percentage?

Also third world. Yes, it's a bad affair that I feel could be solved more simply - but politics isn't necessarily the topic at hand nor one of my "specializations", when it concerns foreign situations especially.

Of course you do. If you protest in a country like China they will lock you up, or worse, losing you both your freedom and independence.

Protests isn't necessarily what I'm talking about, if need be, then yes, but I'd prefer rally followers on a more "legitimate" campaign first, not go straight up with the signs. This in itself is a hypothetical situation and if I were in it I'd be a different person.

Really they didn't make any decision at all since they don't exist, since we've been up Olympus, and they're not there.

I feel my answer to this beforehand was a fair assessment.

Why on Earth are you asking me in a thread which stipulates in the OP that in a hypothetical situation, what kind of God would you worship and why, how God comes about. It's unrelated and irrelevant. He comes about because in my hypothetical situation, he comes about.

Throw out what I've said about this, please. What I said didn't have the strongest ground to follow and what you said was right - unrelated and irrelevant.

Another personal attack. Cheers, you seem like a top bloke. And considering in my posts I have made it clear that a God who does not intervene to ease suffering is a **** is hardly tolerant or indicative of passive agreement of the status quo.

It was quite possibly the first misinterpretation of either of us that sparked this what now seems to be accidental flame war. >.<

What I said in my first reply did and still does to some extent seem reasonable, now I'm unsure what to expect.

No it isn't. We're talking about utopia. How is poverty in the third world not relevant to that discussion?

My hypothetical situation was not a utopia. It was a world with relatively (now that I've mentioned it in the previous reply) "0" moral standard thanks to Globus' guidance, with the main impeding things being technology, resource capacity / availability or any other problems that need "manual" solutions.

The rest I think is pretty much "there" in terms of what I meant. See you around.

- H

Whoa... calm down...

One point: using real world examples doesn't make any sense in this thread. Saying that the Greek gods don't actually exist to disprove a point is bogus. They could exist in a hypothetical world. Talking about human nature is also ridiculous, because there is no reason why your hypothetical world has to have humans, starvation, etc.

The only requirement is that there is some sort of a god, which may or may not be omnipotent, and that you exist (in human form or not) and that you have free will.

So, I'm only going to address things that are actually relevant to this thread:

When it comes to morality, I think both Highfire and Firefly are correct. Because, while in this world there is no concrete objective way to define morality, in Highfire's hypothetical world, there might be.

And, if you think about it, a god that defines morality in clear cut terms would be highly preferable, especially if there was some sort of punishment for being immoral.

This thread is just people saying what they want/don't want out of a God.

That's kind of what it has come to, but that isn't the intended purpose. So, with that, I'm going to sidetrack a little and just talk about worship in general.

As a lifelong atheist, the concept of worship is very bizarre to me. It seems odd that anyone would want to degrade themselves so much, especially for the sake of the gods featured in mainstream religions. Worship has a kind of mindless quality to it. It's different than communication with higher beings, which seems to be much more mutually beneficial.

I have a hard time seeing how worship could be possibly beneficial to either the worshiper or the worshiped. Perhaps the worshiper could fear the wrath of (the) god(s), but this seems unnecessary. As has already been mentioned, why would a god want to be worshiped in the first place?

So, while I think most atheists (who I assumed would be the main posters on this thread) would not worship most (or any) of the gods in mainstream religions, I wondered if there was ANY form of deity that would merit worship. And that is the intended point of this thread.

Back on track now:

Because Firefly actually does raise a good point about tyrannical gods, I'm going to redefine the original question in two ways:

1) Can you think of a benevolent god that would merit your worship? And, if not worship, what is the maximum level of devotion you would give towards a benevolent god?

2) Would you obey a tyrannical god if it required your unwavering worship, under threat of punishment? If so, what is the least about of punishment it would have to threaten you with (for example, would purgatory be enough? Or full blown hell? etc)?

And, if not worship, what is the maximum level of devotion you would give towards a benevolent god?

Treating him with the highest respect I would any human being I feel deserves it. I will never - ever intentionally and seriously degrade myself for another persons gain like that.

If so, what is the least about of punishment it would have to threaten you with (for example, would purgatory be enough? Or full blown hell? etc)?

To me it's alway going to be "it doesn't matter", I mean we could keep arriving at the "It's hypothetical" thing I keep bringing up but I'll just be quiet with that. Simply put, I would stand against it till the point that it is risking an innocent persons life - not my own nor someone who was willingly and knowingly joined me.

- H

1) Can you think of a benevolent god that would merit your worship? And, if not worship, what is the maximum level of devotion you would give towards a benevolent god?

I have pretty much already answered this one, so on to question two.

2) Would you obey a tyrannical god if it required your unwavering worship, under threat of punishment? If so, what is the least about of punishment it would have to threaten you with (for example, would purgatory be enough? Or full blown hell? etc)?

The best it might be able to get out of me is a lie. If this god was able to tell the difference no matter how convincing I was at that lie then there would be no point. If anything I would be trying to figure out way to take such a monster down if at all possible.

Why did citizens of the USSR, Nazi Germany or indeed modern day China respect their masters. Because they hold coercive power over them. If you know there is a God who is a ****, it's unwise to insult them. Self preservation. It's pretty obvious.

But people knew their masters would punish disloyalty. God never interacts with people so nothing happens if you aren't sycophantic.