By their fruits they will be known

[Stevil]

How can we know and judge a leader? We could cite the decisions, the actions that the leader made and judge their leadership based on that. But the difficulty is with understanding the context behind those decisions and actions. Unless we are able to interview the leader and get some honest responses we are left somewhat it the dark.
A more objective approach would be to observe the fruits of their labours. The results and implications that the leadership has created.

Mao Ze Tung was often referred to by his people as being god like.
He was all seeing, all knowing, all powerful.

What was the behaviour of the Chinese people under Mao's rule?
They loved Chairman Mao, they thought he was a living god. Constantly feed an excessive dose of propaganda they were 100% behind Mao's ideals, Mao's vision of China. They truly loved Mao and his red book, they would read from it daily, memorising it, singing from it, they would hang up pictures of Mao, making shrines of their walls.
For them the red book was full of Truth, a mighty wisdom from "god" himself.
They not only loved Mao but they also feared him. They were Mao fearing people but they didn't mind, they hardly recognised the fear, they had faith in Mao and his perfect vision. Mao was perfect and all powerful. They loved him, he was the unquestionable ruler.
Mao could do no wrong, when he exerted justice onto those that did not follow his law, it was perfect justice. It was necessary and it was just.

Noone would talk ill of Mao, he was all seeing, all knowing, his red army was everywhere, he was all powerful and could not be resisted. So they praised him, sang songs about him, read his book religiously, seeking Mao's favour and hence avoiding his wrath.

What kind of a ruler is god? We can't observe god, but we can observe the fruits. Let's take a look at the behaviours of believers.

Christians love their god, constantly feed an excessive does of propaganda...
... seeking god's favour and hence avoiding his wrath.

It amazes me to think of the behaviours of Christians and the way they think of their god. The Christian god is Mao like. If this god was real, then the Christians would be justified in behaving the way that they do, survival is a natural human behaviour after all, it is how most people behave under a ruthless dictatorship.


If you look for the fruits of love, you will find these are very different.
The loved ones exhibit, independence, confidence, self assertedness, they look to the one that loves them for support and are never afraid to question or disobey. They can be themselves, they do not have to show how much they love back, they do not have to be seen to obey, to conform.

[Sweetdeath]

Maybe the christian  god lives in China? Unless he decided to move to Korea at the moment. lol

[Amicale]

Stevil, I'll let others comment on the main point of your thread, but I did have to say this: I've studied Chinese history. Although many people did worship Mao in the way you suggest, there was also plenty of underground criticism of him, many protesters, and many who objected to 'the cult of Mao' that developed there during his 'reign'. For the most part, those people were dealt with swiftly, harshly, and unfairly. It probably does a disservice to those living there at the time to paint them all with the same brush -- some of them were the 'freethinkers' of their culture who just didn't buy into the Mao worship, and I have respect for them.

Anyways, not to nitpick, but just wanted to offer something before the rest of your thread takes off... and it looks like an interesting thread idea, too.

[Stevil]

I just thought it was interesting. I was having lunch with a Chinese work college and she was telling me about life under Mao. I really saw lots of similarities between the behaviours of the people living under the respective rulers. It is beside the point that god does not exist. The believers think he does and they behave accordingly. But they don't behave as people would under a democratic ruler representing them, they behave as if their god is a ruthless dictator.

All this talk of love for god is really just a reaction to fear although at the time the victims don't necessarily consciously recognise the fear.

[Amicale]

I just thought it was interesting. I was having lunch with a Chinese work college and she was telling me about life under Mao. I really saw lots of similarities between the behaviours of the people living under the respective rulers. It is beside the point that god does not exist. The believers think he does and they behave accordingly. But they don't behave as people would under a democratic ruler representing them, they behave as if their god is a ruthless dictator.

All this talk of love for god is really just a reaction to fear although at the time the victims don't necessarily consciously recognise the fear.

Yes, I agree with you there. People talk about the love of God, and in the same breath, they talk about 'having' to believe or do certain things in order to escape punishment and hellfire. And it's not really so much the emphasis on hell itself that most people seem to be worried about -- it's the having God angry with them, and therefore refusing to bless them or forgive them in their day to day lives that actually seems to be the big issue. It's why Catholics go to confession -- not to escape hell, but to 'get right with God' so he doesn't ignore them and they aren't separated from him anymore. It's also why Protestants are big on emotional worship services -- to try to feel closer to God, so that they don't feel cut off from his love. It's largely a system with fear as its basis, even if as you say, most people don't recognize the fear. It just keeps them 'in line', and they continue to call that 'love'.

[Stevil]

Stevil, I'll let others comment on the main point of your thread, but I did have to say this: I've studied Chinese history. Although many people did worship Mao in the way you suggest, there was also plenty of underground criticism of him, many protesters, and many who objected to 'the cult of Mao' that developed there during his 'reign'. For the most part, those people were dealt with swiftly, harshly, and unfairly. It probably does a disservice to those living there at the time to paint them all with the same brush -- some of them were the 'freethinkers' of their culture who just didn't buy into the Mao worship, and I have respect for them.

Anyways, not to nitpick, but just wanted to offer something before the rest of your thread takes off... and it looks like an interesting thread idea, too.

Yes, generalisations I know. Even god has his resistance, take Tristan Jay for example.

[Crow]

I have long thought that the personification of the gods was relevant to the actions of rulers of the times when created. The concept of a monarchy is intrinsically tied to a belief in a god therefore it makes sense that a god or gods would reflect the actions of the ruling elite during those periods of time.

[Stevil]

I have long thought that the personification of the gods was relevant to the actions of rulers of the times when created. The concept of a monarchy is intrinsically tied to a belief in a god therefore it makes sense that a god or gods would reflect the actions of the ruling elite during those periods of time.

How could a god be depicted as a democracy? A god that can lose his rule on a vote, a god that is expected to represent the desires of the society rather than to enforce his wisdom.

[Crow]

How could a god be depicted as a democracy? A god that can lose his rule on a vote, a god that is expected to represent the desires of the society rather than to enforce his wisdom.

Well isn't that what is kind of happening now? Rather than lose rule by vote, the freedom allowed by democracy has enabled those that think god most likely doesn't exist to be open about their opinion, with the god that exists within those that do believe is a reflection of how they perceive it to be (a just and democratic society/a just god).

[Stevil]

Let's say you were a freedom fighter.

Against any god dictatorship rule, most people that don't agree with the god simply disbelieve it. They do not need to fight.
There are some rare cases like Tristan whom believe in god but hate god, their problem is that they cannot fight god because god is nowhere to be seen.

Most of the believers simply submit to the god's authority.

If an unbeliever decides to attempt to free some of those believers then they have their work cut out for them.
Some believers will villainise the unbeliever, they want to be seen by their dictator god as being on his side and against those not on his side.
Others are scared to entertain any thoughts against their god. Unbelief is against their god since their god "justly" punishes the unbeliever.
This is similar behaviour to people under Mao's rule. The public denunciations of the capatilists. No-one dared say anything other than love and loyalty for their ruler. It is worse for god, because supposedly he knows all your thoughts. So people won't even entertain thoughts.

In order to take down a dictator, a freedom fighter must gain enough support, in order to gain support people must believe the fight against the dictator can be successful. This is a great challenge for an earth bound dictator, but much greater of a challenge against a god. People believe gods are all powerful and eternal, how can that be beat?

If god actually exists and if a person manages to kill him, I am pretty sure that many Christians will come out of the woodwork and call that person a hero.

[Stevil]

But ultimately how can you "save" a Christian from the tyranny of their imagined dictatorship?

You can't prove to them that you have the power to overthrow their god, because their god is supposedly all powerful.
You can get them to entertain the thought that their god does not exist, because their god knows their thoughts and tortures the unbeliever.

[Amicale]

But ultimately how can you "save" a Christian from the tyranny of their imagined dictatorship?

You can't prove to them that you have the power to overthrow their god, because their god is supposedly all powerful.
You can get them to entertain the thought that their god does not exist, because their god knows their thoughts and tortures the unbeliever.

The only way we can really go about it is to show them that it is in fact possible to have a happy, fruitful, fulfilling life without fear motivating it.

[Dobermonster]

But ultimately how can you "save" a Christian from the tyranny of their imagined dictatorship?

You can't prove to them that you have the power to overthrow their god, because their god is supposedly all powerful.
You can get them to entertain the thought that their god does not exist, because their god knows their thoughts and tortures the unbeliever.

Individually? A very, very difficult prospect that in many cases is impossible. The power to believe without evidence is just that strong. I think the only answer to the, "What do we do about religion?" question is a gradual cultural shift. And it is happening, you just have to look at the statistics. More people are claiming no religious affiliation. In Canada, it's about 25% right now. With the advent of the "New Atheist" movement (in other words, atheists that aren't afraid to claim disbelief and voice objections about religious influence in their culture), and the discarding of any shame attachment to the label, I think the process will speed up. It might be a little idealistic, but I think reason will eventually prevail . . . it has done so repeatedly over the centuries.

[Sandra Craft]

But ultimately how can you "save" a Christian from the tyranny of their imagined dictatorship?

You can't prove to them that you have the power to overthrow their god, because their god is supposedly all powerful.
You can get them to entertain the thought that their god does not exist, because their god knows their thoughts and tortures the unbeliever.

The only way we can really go about it is to show them that it is in fact possible to have a happy, fruitful, fulfilling life without fear motivating it.

I think it's presumptuous to even try to "save" anybody from Xtianity, or any other religion -- altho some of the sects do seem to call for intervention, still deconversion is a personal process and trying to force it just makes most people dig their heels in.  I think presenting an example of a happy life is the best and most we can reasonably do.

As much of a pain in the ass religion is culturally and politically, it may be be essential to the individual and I don't consider myself in a position to judge that and I certainly wouldn't want to deprive anyone of a personal comfort that, on an individual basis, does not harm me. 

Unfortunately, separating such a widespread personal practice from cultural/political influence seems unlikely so our choice is either trying to interfere with the private lives of the masses (and that worked so well in the Soviet Union) or constantly fighting to make/keep politics as secular as possible.  What to do about the cultural influence, I'm not sure -- maybe we're left there with only being an example.

[xSilverPhinx]

The first time I read Machiavelli's "The Prince" I thought I saw the depiction of the judeo-christian god in there...