None taken..
"Looking at it one way, biblically, it all started when "the people" came top Moses and said, "We want a "government/ religion like all the other people around us.. thereby rejecting God as their supreme leader and wanting a social structure like the Amalkites, Canaanites, Egyptians and other primitive social structures around them at the time.. After a severe warning (as the bible recounts) from God. The big guy said OK, but you must do it this way.. and provided the design for the new renegade system of government/religion..I am not entirely certain to what you are referring here. It sounds as though you have the story of God giving the Law confused with the institution of the Hebrew Kingship.
I said nothing of the 10 suggestions.. and they were suggestions.. They were not Laws.. To have a law you must be able to enforce it.. God had no intention of enforcing it.,. He just implied if you want to follow me you must do THIS.. or NOT <<- also implied.. Most chose not to and reaped the whirlwind in their lives, as most do NOW.. 10 simple truths.. as suggestions.. You don't have to believe they are the truth, so don't.. No bolt from the heavens like from Zeus with impale you.. They are simple social suggestions for a good life on the earth.. Don't follow them and you will end up with not only a religion but a government too.. For after all government is a structure to prevent or watch over those that don't follow the suggestions to guard the rest that do.. Simple really. Government and Religion are replacements for GOD(by men) for NOT following Gods suggestions.. . And a brief look at human history will show how wise that was.. You don't seem you know the bible very well.. Thats OK.. The bible is not a manual anyway..
The institution of the Hebrew Kings, however, was suggested against, and the Jews insisted on it anyway, a request to which God eventually obliged. But the Law, the basis of the Jewish religion, was already well in place at that time, as it was well after the institution of the Torah. Thus, I am not certain how the cases to which you refer prove that God disapproves of religion. God wanted the Hebrews to follow His Law all along.
Actually God made suggestions, the rabbis made it LAW.. God is not the Ogre the rabbis were.. Mankind can't follow laws anyways.. i.e. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (right and wrong).. Which of course was a obviously a metaphor.. God uses metaphors a lot.. in the bible.. or those that recounted the bible recount them.. Why would God demand laws when obviously man can't follow laws.? maybe God is stupid.? I don't think so, or naive even . . Christianity also uses the (renegade) government of Israel to model their own religious superstructure on too.. Pitiful really..
God removed the Ark not as a means to remove the Jewish religion, but rather because of the attitudes that were extended towards the ark itself. The basis for the Jewish religion was the Law itself, based upon the covenant God established with the Jewish people. The loss of the ark did not cause a single letter of the Hebrew law to pass.
Really.. Religious dogma it is.. Is God stupid.?. The Talmud is composed of the Mishna and Geamarra(sp?) anyway Mishna = some Rabbis opinions on what the Torah REALLY means and the Gemarra = other Rabbis opinions on what the first set of Rabbis meant.. Dogma... religious semantics.. So, then; GOD that KNOWS man cannot follow law, demands that man follow law.. actually its job security for the Rabbis.. Do sense a disconnect here.. Religion, ALL religion is a spiritual disease. just as human government is a social disease.. Tevi (Fiddler on the Roof) did not need religion, any religion.. as an example.. there are others..
We should also note that God is not the author of rebellion, as God is the source of lawfulness. God would not establish a system abhorrent to Himself, as God cannot sin against Himself. (Omnipotence does not mean God can violate His own nature.)
Sin!..... Sin is a straw man... Man is responsible for and to himself.. Responsible to do what.?. Responsible to be grateful... simply thats it.... Man is responsible to be grateful for that he is aware of.. Dogs are more grateful than most people.. Awareness is measured by gratitude.. The 10 suggestions simply allows man to be more grateful.. The rarest thing on this planet is gratitude.. More important than "sin" is gratitude.. A deeply grateful man "sins" very little.. Everybody lives forever, its just where you'll spend your time.. And the gratitude you've gained will determine what that will be.. A very "aware" person is a very grateful person.. Happiness comes from the inside out determined by the gratitude that lives within.. Sin is a straw man.. The less gratitude the more "sin".. So then, trying NOT to sin is a mistake.. Seek gratitude and then you will become more Aware of more things to be grateful for.. You will sin anyway, because you ARE sin... Gratitude is the cure for sin, sin is not the absence of gratitude.. A man can be grateful for a pretty, and cheap whore..
I am not quite certain why you say God has no name: in the Old Testament he reveals it to be YHWH. In addition, many of the points you make ultimately beg the question from the outset: you basically seem to be arguing that God would not create a religion because religions are and always have been human made institutions.
His/its answer to Moses shows he has no name.. i.e. "I am than I am".(Ex: chap3).. Basically WHO are you to ask my name.?. <-implied... Good enough for Moses, good enough for me.. God does not need to identify itself.. Works for me.. Naming God is 'bagging" God.. Is God Stupid.?... Call him whatever you want.. names mean nothing.. as does human language.. Very very crude way of communication.. God dealt with Adam and can and will deal with you, directly.. You don't need religion.. How do I know.? I do ... trust me... LoL..... or not...
As you astutely point out, it is unlikely that we will come to an agreement here, but are both posting for the benefit of lurkers. I would not go so far as to say that the inability on either of our parts to change our positions is due to obstinance, but rather upon a fundamental difference in certain starting premises. At any rate, I always enjoy the exchange of ideas!
Mee too, sometimes.. rarely in this depth,.. Hey, but the subject seemed right.. And "something" came over me... Me the only prophet in my cult with one member.. got a lot of hats.. d;-)..
Ah, now we are just getting into matters of interpretation regarding the Old Testament, with which I cannot argue with you because different interpretations, by nature, involve different starting premises when approaching the text in question. The process would be long and drawn out, as both sides would have to explain and support fundamental premises, which is a lot more work than either of us really want to do. That would be way more in depth than this forum would allow (still, it's always nice to show that discussions can go on without the almost ad hominem attacks that are almost obligatory around here).
Still, I like the hat. I've always thought that a prophet needs a good hat. I lost my hat... that's why I gave up my prophethood. Needless to say, my cult was disappointed... (well, it was just me, but I still felt pretty bad... it was a nice hat).