I've been thinking for a while now about this. Take negotiation or haggling over price. You know you want to pay a max of X, so you offer X-Y and on the other

I've been thinking for a while now about this. Take negotiation or haggling over price. You know you want to pay a max of X, so you offer X-Y and on the other end the same happens in reverse until both sides hopefully reach a Z somewhere close enough to their own X that they agree to make the transaction. You alway ask for something extra in a negotiation that you can give up on or bargain with that doesn't really hurt. If I apply this to population control via religion, your teachings should be about the absolute best behaviours. You burn in hell if you don't behave like X etc. Makes total sense to me as in reality people as a whole will deviate to a certain extent. But by insisting on X, on average everyone arrives at Z. Of course this makes no sense to you or me or other atheists that are perfectly capable of being decent human beings without all the religious mumbo jumbo. But if you were charged with keeping a large populous of all sorts of different people under control, how would you do that? "Reasoning" with them is likely not to yield the kind of results you want, especially if we are talking living conditions of hundreds to thousands of years ago. The trick is to be the high priest, not the sacrifice ;)