Enter at own Risk..

               

    

   Dog trainers assert that it is not difficult to train an 

"attack" dog, from any dog of suitable size.
As the dog’s basic instinct is to "attack" "savage" anything that it perceives as “alien" how difficult can it be, then, to “instruct” “encourage” an animal to do what it does naturally?
   However it is very difficult if not an uphill task, to train a dog to respond to “abort” or to “stop” when it “attacks” i.e. does what comes naturally.

 Or to NOT ATTACK at all when it’s every instinct is to..?
   
Training any animal to do something that is basically against its nature is almost always tougher, if not impossible.
 

   Man basically is an animal in a very empirical sense. And highly individualistic as well as intelligent, with his own personal preferences, inclinations and indiscipline. 

  All attributes that complicate the issue of asserting compliance & control over him.
 

   Self control is a force that is hard to master. An animal or creature generally has very little self control when placed in situations that tempt it to satiate its very basic (and usually irresistible) urges. 

<•> A fish placed in front of a cat. 
<•> A juicy bone in front of a dog. 
<•> A wolf in close quarters with a rabbit.
   In Man however, reverse psychology works better; most times. 
     Try telling a teen to not peek into a book for instance, with an added warning that it’ll be dangerous for him. He most definitely will do that the next available instance.
Tell him its better to ride his bike slowly as its dangerous otherwise and the next moment he’ll tear down the streets.
That is a child’s sense of responding to challenges as well as curiosity and the added thrill of  the danger-seeking self-destruct nature inborn in man. 

      Now if a layperson can surmise such basic psychology how come Adam  was “warned” to not eat of a fruit in the Garden? To stay away from a particular fruit with the added warning of risk and increased thrill factor of doing great harm to himself if he disobeys?
   Some ONE must have miscalculated Adam’s compliance quotient? Or was Adam's natural  response expected & meant to be so?
Of course Creation & the Tales of ADAM/EVE & the Garden of Eden with THAT tree of Knowledge was crafted for the illustrative rendering of a much more complex mystery of how Man came about. In a nutshell a simplified edition for the consumption of common man & woman most of whom are not really bothered either way -- whether it was an apple tree or even if that tale was Gospel truth  ... as told.

Base on the assumption that the Creation was as told in Genesis ---
after the First ever Act of disobedience or assertion of Ego or whatever it is called, was committed, by Man's foreDaddy ADAM; we hear of :

***Joseph happily taking Mary to be his lawful wife even though she was pregnant with an illegitimate child in that day and age when such an act would bring tumultuous calamity on the house from which Joseph descended.
***Mary happily agreeing, unquestioningly to become “with child” when asked to be impregnated. Who in her right mind, (an unliberated mind of long ago ages at that), would agree unquestioningly to such a preposterous suggestion? Even if she’s only to be “covered” by the HOLY Spirit, would anyone in those days when the level of prudity far exceeded even Elizabethan norms, allow herself to be “done to”?
Some describes these acts of ready acquiescence as ‘amazing’ and points to the level of faith in God that Joseph and Mary must have had.
They both must have had frequent contacts with angels to find it not unusual meeting with and agreeing to such preposterous requests.
Then of course other tales suggest complete reliance and compliance with God’s subsequent orders, 

un-befitting their high level of preposterousness and ridiculous zero logic.    

***Abraham after begetting Isaac, in his extreme old age, agreeing readily to slit his throat on God’s order.
***Noah risking public contempt and mockery by consenting to building an ark on dry land with no sign of rain or floods and with the added risk of filling it with wild, poisonous, deadly, creatures. 


***Moses believing he could challenge the might of the Pharaoh and even possesses power over the seas with his rod and stave. 

    Thus looking at the Creation and the fall of Adam we can say that Man failed the very first test, miserably.
    And subsequently man (and woman passed) every other tests, believing & placing entire faith on religious theology that defies almost every human logic, despite & regardless of their incredulousness, preposterousness, illogic.
   Yet we find it goes so against our nature, so hard to even believe in good old Santa Clause.
 

Human beings can be construed to be unfathomable in it’s respond to a pitch .. 
be that 
a sales pitch, 
       a religious pitch 
            or a plain CON pitch as long as certain criteria are satisfactorily provided.
It is not too preposterous to surmise some Man would believe in anything if that promise contain factors that satisfy his basic beastly urges  & primal needs, &  especially if it bolsters/boosts his defective ego.

  

PS:

The FLAT-Earth adherents only recently done their last round of deregistration exercise.

$îqmåññ Fråü∂
circa:00o0