The tyranny of religion

[grumbler]

you're not leading if you're following, God is leading

God tried leading Adam, didn't work, Adam didn't follow. And we're here because of it...

Gods make very poor leaders, overall. None of them seem very bright. I wouldn't follow a god too stupid to realize when his lies were exposed. And "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die" was a stupid bluff anyway - "die" wasn't a concept that Adam would know about, yet.

[Berzerker]

He should have followed God, not Eve.

You think following God actually defines leadership. But God issued an order and it was not followed, Eve did not order Adam to follow... He saw the tree and decided for himself, he lead. He (they) lead us to enlightenment. Had Adam "lead" using your definition of leading, we'd still be naked tilling God's garden and following orders.

[Berzerker]

Gods make very poor leaders, overall. None of them seem very bright. I wouldn't follow a god too stupid to realize when his lies were exposed. And "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die" was a stupid bluff anyway - "die" wasn't a concept that Adam would know about, yet.

Adam must have known about death otherwise why would God try to scare him away from the tree?

[Kidlicious]

Gods make very poor leaders, overall. None of them seem very bright. I wouldn't follow a god too stupid to realize when his lies were exposed. And "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die" was a stupid bluff anyway - "die" wasn't a concept that Adam would know about, yet.

None of us actually know much. God has to try to get through to us regardless.

[Kidlicious]

This thread isn't that bad ... for a MOBIUS thread.

[grumbler]

Adam must have known about death otherwise why would God try to scare him away from the tree?

That's the point. Why would a god try to scare a man using the concept the man couldn't know to be scared of? It was like threatening Adam with a computer virus. That's just crappy leadership. Which, as I noted, gods are prone to. Look at Zeus in the Trojan War - pathetic leadership.

Anyone who follows a god has a fool for a leader. Any god who leads men has fools for followers.

[grumbler]

None of us actually know much. God has to try to get through to us regardless.

A good leader is a good communicator. Gods are crappy communicators.

[Kidlicious]

A good leader is a good communicator. Gods are crappy communicators.

God isn't a school teacher for good reason. A school teacher can make you believe something with your intellect because he basically reads the answer book to you a little at a time each week. But he can't get you to believe something with your will. Only God can do that, and that takes being God, not just a leader, by human standards.

[grumbler]

God isn't a school teacher for good reason. A school teacher can make you believe something with your intellect because he basically reads the answer book to you a little at a time each week. But he can't get you to believe something with your will. Only God can do that, and that takes being God, not just a leader, by human standards.

But my point is that gods are not just bad teachers (which they are, for sure), but bad communicators, decision-makers, etc. Adam's god could have kept Adam from eating the fruit of that tree (indeed, he could presumably not have even had such a tree tree), but he didn't. Evidence suggests that Adam's god set him up; that his god wanted him to eat the fruit. Gods are devious like that in almost all the pantheons.

[Ben Kenobi]

But he can't get you to believe something with your will. Only God can do that

You have a strange theology.

[Kidlicious]

But my point is that gods are not just bad teachers (which they are, for sure), but bad communicators, decision-makers, etc. Adam's god could have kept Adam from eating the fruit of that tree (indeed, he could presumably not have even had such a tree tree), but he didn't. Evidence suggests that Adam's god set him up; that his god wanted him to eat the fruit. Gods are devious like that in almost all the pantheons.

God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but he wanted them to have the choice of eating the fruit, which is symbolic of rejecting perfect oneness with God. The fact that God created human beings makes him awesome, not comparable to human beings. And that's what you're doing, comparing him to human beings. There really is no comparison because human beings are foolish in their rejection of godliness.

[Kidlicious]

You have a strange theology.

It's not theology. Don't accuse me of theology. It's just a simple run down of the possibilities of human knowing.

[rah]

The fact that man created god makes us awesome

FTFY

[grumbler]

God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but he wanted them to have the choice of eating the fruit, which is symbolic of rejecting perfect oneness with God. The fact that God created human beings makes him awesome, not comparable to human beings. And that's what you're doing, comparing him to human beings. There really is no comparison because human beings are foolish in their rejection of godliness.

I've heard that rationalization before and it wasn't credible then, either. The whole tree thing was a setup, the way the story appears in the bible, and it is clear from the story that Adam's god intended him to fail. Only Adam's failure and sin can advance the plot. We never hear about the tree or the fruit or any of that ever again in the story. There's a word for plot devices like the Tree: macguffin.

And the whole "you can't compare gods to people" bit is lame as well. Gods can't be anything people can't think of, because gods are created by peoples' imaginations. Only the worst stories have plot holes that can only be explained away as "that god works in mysterious ways."

[Kidlicious]

Whether Adam was set up or not really isn't the point. You called God a bad communicator/teacher. I'm not just imagining him and rationalizing that he's a good communicator. I'm explaining to you that what you're calling bad communication really isn't. You can't communicate to someone how to be godly in the same way that you can teach them how to program a computer, certainly not humans who have a very ungodly nature.