3 ms·

> It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Can you giv

> It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Can you give me an example of what you mean? From Christianity, as its the religion I know most about.

_yb2s 2y ago
I'm not a scholar of Christian literature (or a Christian), and I don't speak Latin, so it would hardly be appropriate for me to pull out a specific quote and insist "this is what they really meant." In truth, my original source for this was my own understanding being raised in a Christian church- and voicing this perspective out loud in church as a young kid didn't go over well, as you might imagine. To me as a young kid, it was immediately obvious that there were deeper ethical principles being explained in these stories, and one had to be an idiot to be worried about if they were objective factual details or not, when the point was clearly to understand and embody the message- to practice and live it. One was called to have faith that living these principles wholeheartedly was the right thing to do and would lead to real spiritual growth, not to have faith that some particular guy built a particular boat- such things are irrelevant. However St. Augustine is someone that I am particularly certain had a clear understanding of this, and I can see it in how he frames most of his ideas. Another example, would be that ancient religious texts are not careful at all to avoid making numerous objectively factual contradictions- as the anti-christian crowd loves to point out over and over while also completely missing the point. If the people writing them thought that was important, they would have avoided doing so- contrary to modern opinion, ancient theologians and philosophers like St. Augustine were not idiots. William Blake is a more modern person that, while just about the furthest thing from a monastic, clearly had a deep understanding of what I am talking about. Carl Jung also extensively understood and discussed a lot of esoteric things in Christianity including this, and wrote about them in a relatively clear modern way.
- graemep 2y ago
  > However St. Augustine is someone that I am particularly certain had a clear understanding of this, and I can see it in how he frames most of his ideas. Can you give me an example of one? > To me as a young kid, it was immediately obvious that there were deeper ethical principles being explained in these stories, and one had to be an idiot to be worried about if they were objective factual details or not Again, an example? You are suggesting for example that there is no redemption or afterlife but they convey some point? > If the people writing them thought that was important, they would have avoided doing so- contrary to modern opinion, ancient theologians and philosophers like St. Augustine were not idiots. Does Augustine contradict himself? In a single work (different views in different works could be a change of mind)?
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Look at Wikiquote for some of St Augustines most well known quotes with what I am saying in mind- if you can’t see a dozen examples you’re not going to agree with a specific one I point out either. I am refusing to give a specific example for a reason- you will almost certainly disagree immediately with the specific example - because they are written with an alternate interpretation possible on purpose - and then think my whole premise must be wrong as a result without looking at the bigger picture, and seeing how often this plausibly deniable concept keeps coming up. > You are suggesting for example that there is no redemption or afterlife I am suggesting no such thing, only that dwelling on this issue is to miss the point, and even worrying about it would be an obstacle. One must deeply feel these ideas and practice accordingly to follow this spiritual path- even getting stuck on arguing that they are true would be an obstacle to that.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    I am curious where you are coming from- are you a religious person that feels like my distinction between religious and objective truth undermines your beliefs, or are you a non-religious person that dislikes the idea that religion may still have value, even if the beliefs are not based on objective physical truth? Myself, I would say I am non-religious, but have a lot of respect for the purpose and value religions offers people, and that one benefits greatly by understanding and filling those roles and needs in other ways even if not practicing a religion. I very much dislike the Richard Dawkins follower crowd that hate religion with a passion, but have no understanding of it, and have no connection to or understanding of their own emotions, unconscious, or spirituality to their own detriment.
roenxi 2y ago
You might enjoy this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-06-05 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-06-05 It makes a humourous and compelling argument that a big part of Christianity is encouraging its adherents to follow the game-theoretic optimum in a way that will convince someone even if they are a bit credulous. If you approach the bible with a good knowledge of negotiation and game theory, a lot of it can be interpreted in that light. There is a lot of good advice to get people to move to the global optimums that can be reached if everyone cooperates. It isn't subtle about it. There is no conspiracy to hide that it is good advice even to someone who doesn't particularly believe in afterlives, miracles or god-given ethics. There is a very neat division between the common read and the read of someone with a good grasp of social dynamics, negotiation and game theory. No conspiracies. Just a lot of people who can't handle complex social negotiation.
- graemep 2y ago
  Its hardly a new idea. One problem is that there is a lot more to religion than ethics. It also assumes that religious rules of behaviour are global optimums. It fails to explain why religions spread too - why would people believe in the religion that promotes cooperation, rather than one another one? In fact, I would argue, that, in the west, far more people are moralistic therapeutic deists than Christians. There is also a lack of evidence it works. I do not think Christians are consistently greatly more socially cooperative than atheists. Maybe more inclined to help people on the fringes of society - e.g. running food banks here in the UK, very active in poverty charities globally but while good, I cannot believe it has a sufficient consistent effect to provide an advantage to a society that follows it. Fear of hell as a motivator is limited to some Christian denominations but is not often mentioned by other denominations (I am mostly familiar with Catholic and Anglican churches) or in the Bible, or Christian writings, or in sermons or in religious discussions. Christian universalists and others do not believe in any form of hell at all! It might work with a religion once established (religious societies do better because of that cooperation) but it does not explain how religions spread in the first place. Its a lot more likely to apply to a religion that has been long established in a relatively stable setting so it is credible as an explanation of much of ancient Jewish law that seems strange to us now (e.g. what to eat, not plucking fruit from young trees etc) that often seems off from a modern perspective.

_yb2s 2y ago

I'm not a scholar of Christian literature (or a Christian), and I don't speak Latin, so it would hardly be appropriate for me to pull out a specific quote and insist "this is what they really meant." In truth, my original source for this was my own understanding being raised in a Christian church- and voicing this perspective out loud in church as a young kid didn't go over well, as you might imagine. To me as a young kid, it was immediately obvious that there were deeper ethical principles being explained in these stories, and one had to be an idiot to be worried about if they were objective factual details or not, when the point was clearly to understand and embody the message- to practice and live it. One was called to have faith that living these principles wholeheartedly was the right thing to do and would lead to real spiritual growth, not to have faith that some particular guy built a particular boat- such things are irrelevant. However St. Augustine is someone that I am particularly certain had a clear understanding of this, and I can see it in how he frames most of his ideas. Another example, would be that ancient religious texts are not careful at all to avoid making numerous objectively factual contradictions- as the anti-christian crowd loves to point out over and over while also completely missing the point. If the people writing them thought that was important, they would have avoided doing so- contrary to modern opinion, ancient theologians and philosophers like St. Augustine were not idiots. William Blake is a more modern person that, while just about the furthest thing from a monastic, clearly had a deep understanding of what I am talking about. Carl Jung also extensively understood and discussed a lot of esoteric things in Christianity including this, and wrote about them in a relatively clear modern way.

graemep 2y ago
> However St. Augustine is someone that I am particularly certain had a clear understanding of this, and I can see it in how he frames most of his ideas. Can you give me an example of one? > To me as a young kid, it was immediately obvious that there were deeper ethical principles being explained in these stories, and one had to be an idiot to be worried about if they were objective factual details or not Again, an example? You are suggesting for example that there is no redemption or afterlife but they convey some point? > If the people writing them thought that was important, they would have avoided doing so- contrary to modern opinion, ancient theologians and philosophers like St. Augustine were not idiots. Does Augustine contradict himself? In a single work (different views in different works could be a change of mind)?
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Look at Wikiquote for some of St Augustines most well known quotes with what I am saying in mind- if you can’t see a dozen examples you’re not going to agree with a specific one I point out either. I am refusing to give a specific example for a reason- you will almost certainly disagree immediately with the specific example - because they are written with an alternate interpretation possible on purpose - and then think my whole premise must be wrong as a result without looking at the bigger picture, and seeing how often this plausibly deniable concept keeps coming up. > You are suggesting for example that there is no redemption or afterlife I am suggesting no such thing, only that dwelling on this issue is to miss the point, and even worrying about it would be an obstacle. One must deeply feel these ideas and practice accordingly to follow this spiritual path- even getting stuck on arguing that they are true would be an obstacle to that.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I am curious where you are coming from- are you a religious person that feels like my distinction between religious and objective truth undermines your beliefs, or are you a non-religious person that dislikes the idea that religion may still have value, even if the beliefs are not based on objective physical truth? Myself, I would say I am non-religious, but have a lot of respect for the purpose and value religions offers people, and that one benefits greatly by understanding and filling those roles and needs in other ways even if not practicing a religion. I very much dislike the Richard Dawkins follower crowd that hate religion with a passion, but have no understanding of it, and have no connection to or understanding of their own emotions, unconscious, or spirituality to their own detriment.

roenxi 2y ago

You might enjoy this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-06-05 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-06-05 It makes a humourous and compelling argument that a big part of Christianity is encouraging its adherents to follow the game-theoretic optimum in a way that will convince someone even if they are a bit credulous. If you approach the bible with a good knowledge of negotiation and game theory, a lot of it can be interpreted in that light. There is a lot of good advice to get people to move to the global optimums that can be reached if everyone cooperates. It isn't subtle about it. There is no conspiracy to hide that it is good advice even to someone who doesn't particularly believe in afterlives, miracles or god-given ethics. There is a very neat division between the common read and the read of someone with a good grasp of social dynamics, negotiation and game theory. No conspiracies. Just a lot of people who can't handle complex social negotiation.

graemep 2y ago
Its hardly a new idea. One problem is that there is a lot more to religion than ethics. It also assumes that religious rules of behaviour are global optimums. It fails to explain why religions spread too - why would people believe in the religion that promotes cooperation, rather than one another one? In fact, I would argue, that, in the west, far more people are moralistic therapeutic deists than Christians. There is also a lack of evidence it works. I do not think Christians are consistently greatly more socially cooperative than atheists. Maybe more inclined to help people on the fringes of society - e.g. running food banks here in the UK, very active in poverty charities globally but while good, I cannot believe it has a sufficient consistent effect to provide an advantage to a society that follows it. Fear of hell as a motivator is limited to some Christian denominations but is not often mentioned by other denominations (I am mostly familiar with Catholic and Anglican churches) or in the Bible, or Christian writings, or in sermons or in religious discussions. Christian universalists and others do not believe in any form of hell at all! It might work with a religion once established (religious societies do better because of that cooperation) but it does not explain how religions spread in the first place. Its a lot more likely to apply to a religion that has been long established in a relatively stable setting so it is credible as an explanation of much of ancient Jewish law that seems strange to us now (e.g. what to eat, not plucking fruit from young trees etc) that often seems off from a modern perspective.