If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on. But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story. In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do. Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality. Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.
Alternatively, one could see that there is good and bad within reality and that, if there were an original maker of the world, we owe thanks for the good things and are in turn owed a big explanation for that bad things. Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.
Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here. You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you. We have different idea of what the Universe looks like. Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."
If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.
How convenient. You do realize that saying "I have reasons but I'll not share them with you" is essentially the same as saying that you have no reasons at all.
Yeah, that does sound like a cop-out doesn't it? Bad on me. I'd would be glad to share my reasons, but time and tangents are the concern. For instance, if I told you that I think biology points the existence of God, you'd say "Posh! Biology points to blind evolution!" and that would be it's own (probably ugly) tangent. If I told you that I think God has directly communicated with me on at least two occasions, you'd want to psychoanalyze me and figure out the "rational explanation" for my experience. If I told I find Christianity to be eminently logical, we'd have to hash out logic. If I we were going to spend the next three hours nursing drinks, that would be just fine (even fun), but I don't think it would work well here and now.
That sounds like a cop-out too. Crap.
Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad.
NO NO NO!! I didn't say that rejecting religion makes you a toad! Nothing of the sort! I said that toads and worms
have no beliefs. Humans are not like toads because humans
must believe
something. Complete non-belief isn't an option for us. Rejecting God does not make you a toad: Toads can't reject God. Only people can.
You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it.
Argh! I'm at work. I have work to do. Curse work!
As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that. Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks. Personal revelation? Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth. Revelation to everybody? Negates free will. If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room! It's me, God! See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable. We'd be back to being toads. Endless succession of prophets? Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones. A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.
Why the Bible? Again, the cop-out "lots of reasons." But I will admit that it is not
primarily objective, verifiable evidence that convinces me on this front.
Alas, now I must earn some salary.
But I'm not calling anybody a toad! Please don't misunderstand that!