Scripture as an ultimate moral dilemma
What makes for an impactful moral dilemma? For me it is the "Ultimatum."
By ultimatum I mean:
1). Everyone is a participant in the dilemma.
2). Ones hand is forced - ie the decision is inescapable, all possible moves or choices are anticipated/factored in regarding the outcome.
3). The stakes are ethically extreme.
Consider the trolley problem as a prime example of a scenario that is "almost" a true ultimatum. In the trolley problem:
1). The ethical stakes are high (the lives of the people on either track).
2). Ones hand is forced - there is a lever and two tracks - a binary decision without loopholes like destroying the track, de-railing the trolley, force majeure (basically all third party variables you could cite as a reason not to participate nor be culpable are ruled out).
3). However - Everyone is not a true participant -because it is merely a hypothetical thought experiment not a real life scenario with real life consequences.
Therefore the trolley problem approaches but does not achieve the "ultimatum" status.
However I've noticed another ultimatum that curiously comes from historical gospel accounts of all places.
Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice:
1). "Spread the word" that I am the fundamental truth (God). In doing so you a). Educate/teach (as true knowledge is based on the truth) and b) Are ethical - as telling the truth/being honest is as virtue that supports the greater good. In doing so you remove ignorance from those you tell - empowering them with knowledge while acting honestly/truly.
2). Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled.
3). Keep the truth entirely to yourself. In this case you can only speak/communicate untruths/lies promoting delusion, ignorance and misdirection for others. This may present as an attempt to destroy the argument itself - by denying the 3 options rationally exist or by manufacturing a pseudo-fourth option cited as "not yet considered" outside of accept, ignore or reject. This ultimately disempowers others by keeping knowledge away from them. And is unethical (dishonest and disabling) in self service.
Now for the high stakes:
1). Those who choose option one catapult me into fame and recognition/acknowledgement - as the word of my proof spreads from person to person.
2). Those who choose option two are none the wiser, and unsure of what is going on ( "?" )
3). Those who choose option three: are inherently my antagonists - and must silence/eradicate the truth by any means necessary to protect their own agenda/self-interest/narrative. Meaning I will likely be assassinated/martyred based on your collective choices.
Thus the ultimatum plays out as follows:
1). Everyone becomes a participant - due to those whom opt for option 1 - spread the word bringing the topic into the light of current global affairs/mass media coverage.
2). All Hands are forced (due to the inherent nature of the word/dilemma itself.
3) The stakes are high - humiliation, defamation, torture and persection at the hands of those who opt for option 3 and due to the inaction of the remainder.
To me this serves as a true ultimatum unlike the trolley problem if it were to be "witnessed" (play out in reality), because unlike the trolley problem it is designed to operate through human nature and communication alone. It is self proving in the fact that the outcome is cited at the start and then subsequently fulfilled - indicating prescience.
In this way I believe notable historical figures in not just scripture but also politics wielded mass psychology to empower themselves and the knowing cost of their own lives to spread a message they truly believed in. I think "ultimatums" potency relies on this dynamic as outlined above.
By ultimatum I mean:
1). Everyone is a participant in the dilemma.
2). Ones hand is forced - ie the decision is inescapable, all possible moves or choices are anticipated/factored in regarding the outcome.
3). The stakes are ethically extreme.
Consider the trolley problem as a prime example of a scenario that is "almost" a true ultimatum. In the trolley problem:
1). The ethical stakes are high (the lives of the people on either track).
2). Ones hand is forced - there is a lever and two tracks - a binary decision without loopholes like destroying the track, de-railing the trolley, force majeure (basically all third party variables you could cite as a reason not to participate nor be culpable are ruled out).
3). However - Everyone is not a true participant -because it is merely a hypothetical thought experiment not a real life scenario with real life consequences.
Therefore the trolley problem approaches but does not achieve the "ultimatum" status.
However I've noticed another ultimatum that curiously comes from historical gospel accounts of all places.
Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice:
1). "Spread the word" that I am the fundamental truth (God). In doing so you a). Educate/teach (as true knowledge is based on the truth) and b) Are ethical - as telling the truth/being honest is as virtue that supports the greater good. In doing so you remove ignorance from those you tell - empowering them with knowledge while acting honestly/truly.
2). Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled.
3). Keep the truth entirely to yourself. In this case you can only speak/communicate untruths/lies promoting delusion, ignorance and misdirection for others. This may present as an attempt to destroy the argument itself - by denying the 3 options rationally exist or by manufacturing a pseudo-fourth option cited as "not yet considered" outside of accept, ignore or reject. This ultimately disempowers others by keeping knowledge away from them. And is unethical (dishonest and disabling) in self service.
Now for the high stakes:
1). Those who choose option one catapult me into fame and recognition/acknowledgement - as the word of my proof spreads from person to person.
2). Those who choose option two are none the wiser, and unsure of what is going on ( "?" )
3). Those who choose option three: are inherently my antagonists - and must silence/eradicate the truth by any means necessary to protect their own agenda/self-interest/narrative. Meaning I will likely be assassinated/martyred based on your collective choices.
Thus the ultimatum plays out as follows:
1). Everyone becomes a participant - due to those whom opt for option 1 - spread the word bringing the topic into the light of current global affairs/mass media coverage.
2). All Hands are forced (due to the inherent nature of the word/dilemma itself.
3) The stakes are high - humiliation, defamation, torture and persection at the hands of those who opt for option 3 and due to the inaction of the remainder.
To me this serves as a true ultimatum unlike the trolley problem if it were to be "witnessed" (play out in reality), because unlike the trolley problem it is designed to operate through human nature and communication alone. It is self proving in the fact that the outcome is cited at the start and then subsequently fulfilled - indicating prescience.
In this way I believe notable historical figures in not just scripture but also politics wielded mass psychology to empower themselves and the knowing cost of their own lives to spread a message they truly believed in. I think "ultimatums" potency relies on this dynamic as outlined above.
Comments (59)
I think it would apply to all truths - scientific and technological discoveries etc however there would be a frame change here. The stakes/consequences of not sharing these truths/illuminations would be different - for example social inequalities in wealth, healthcare, and eroding autonomy, further "not everyone would be a participant (ie aware of the process p(aying out before them), and there would be know prescience/ premonition of one's own murder involved/ no undertaking of full responsibility for everyone's actions with your own life as the payment for such an endeavour.
However the OP outlined a non-cynical option: option 1. In this case (with no opposition and malice) the frame is quite optimistic.
It is based on choice alone. Therefore it is neither cynical nor optimistic until those faced with the dilemma make their individual choices.
If everyone chose option 1 then there would be mutual global pride/esteem and no reason to make a martyr of the originator. That is the ideal.
The anti-ideal is that everyone opts for option 3.
And the realistic pov is that likely all three choices will be made by a population. And that people would re-elect new choices as things transpire.
Therefore it isn't inherently cynical nor optimistic, it indulges free will to pursue either case.
Quoting Leontiskos
Psychology and philosophy are intersectional disciplines. I doubt one can truly separate them entirely.
Er, but only as a preliminary. You go on to say:
Quoting Benj96
The whole thing is supposed to be "designed," "wielded," etc., to produce some dramatic effect.
My point is that an ultimatum need not be designed to produce some dramatic effect. It might just be true, and in being true may end up producing a dramatic effect. Ultimatums are impactful by their very nature, yes, but you seem to be saying that an ultimatum is necessarily wielded as an instrument towards something other than truth. I would say an ultimatum can be instrumentalized in that sense, but need not be.
I agree that an ultimatum is impactful, but I don't think it needs to be reduced to a sociological tool. Maybe I am misreading you, but much of your OP goes beyond looking at ultimatums, and goes on to look at the motives of those wielding ultimatums.
Quoting tim wood
There is a conflation occurring between a necessary act and a necessary choice. "Forcing one's hand" refers to a movement ad unum (towards one thing or one external act). It does not generally refer to something which must be decided. "You need to do this," is very different from, "You need to make a decision about what to do." An ultimatum forces a decision, not an external act. Here there is the very large difference between choice and coercion.
No, I can choose to do nothing.
Quoting Benj96
4) Deny the word.
Quoting Benj96
Ignoring words is one of the fundamental human mental tasks. We can't pay attention to everything, we have to choose. The trick is knowing which ones to ignore.
Exactly. Each choice is accounted for already. One has free will to choose between the 3 choices but no free will to not choose anything. Ones hand is indeed forced. So chooses option two, demonstrating "ignorance" of the dilemma.
Hmmm.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, I do think this is a fourth option. One can understand the message and spend time studying the word, but nonetheless work hard to deny its worth To deny from knowledge might be a more useful action than to ignore from ignorance. Just as some Bible scholars are atheists who consider the Bible to be largely an immoral book. Perhaps you have presented a false trichotomy?
As you'll see from the OP there are two options other than accept: Ignore (passive) or deny (actively oppose).
You haven't offered a fourth alternative merely reiterated the preexisting choices using different phrasing which -despite somewhat arbitrary semantic differences -ultimately circles back to the same dilemma: accept, ignore or reject.
I'm such a way, any respondent cannot avoid hut make a choice (as assumption 1 + 2 highlight: that a). Everyone is a participant and b) . Their hand is forced in the matter.
I thought your third one was keep it to yourself?
It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spreading it as through their action it is less and less within your sole posession. Otherwise you're merely ignoring it (neither trying to keep it unveiled nor prevent its dissemination).
"To keep a certain set of knowledge to yourself is to eradicate other potential distributors". To be ignorant/passive to the process is to merely exert non-interference".
In any case you end up choosing one of the three positions/choices set out in the OP.
In addition to my other comments, this to me does not follow. How would you demonstrate that ignoring the word leads to any particular outcome? Why wouldn't it lead to happiness and satisfaction? Hence ignorance is bliss?
Might it not also be the case that knowing and accepting the word could lead to being misled and misdirected by others? We know this is how religion works all over the world. What version of truth are you describing where there is no possibility for it to be misused by bad faith actors?
Quoting Benj96
No - to me there is a fourth option - to deny it from a position of knowledge and to actively work to take it down because you beleive the truth to have bad consequences for humanity.
There was no mention of it leading to happiness nor satisfaction. As a passive player, your circumstances are solely contingent on others who either know the truth and impart it to you (out of good faith) , or those that keep it from you (lie to you).
Quoting Tom Storm
It is misused - by those who take option 3: keep it to themselves. By knowing it, they have control, in the sense that they can deny it to you by knowing exactly what not to speak of. They are aware of it, and refuse to share that. Therefore all they can do is misguide/ create deceit. These are the "bad faith actors" you speak of -option 3.
This is option three - please refer to the OP. To actively oppose the truth and its spread.
Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy is based on many people being allowed their own free will to a). know the truth (be taught/educated) and b). to judge how to use it themselves (autonomy):
Therefore, I don't see how any one individual should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone else that it ought not be spread. This would be assuming the role of option three of the OP - keep it to oneself and actively suppress any attempt by others to disseminate it.
I do not see how ignorance and knowledge are the same.
Quoting Benj96
If you are certain it is harmful you may think this is vital work. But in this scenario have you ruled out others also taking a position against the content of the word?
They are not. Ignorance is a lack or avoidance of knowledge when faced with such. Knowledge is simply knowledge.
Quoting Tom Storm
But if the case is that you're ignorant, your "certainties" are falsely placed correct? Someone who opts for choice 2 (ignorance) can still exert what they "think" is true and ethical. That doesn't mean their actions are well rationalised. Intentions are not enough alone.
Good intentions and a lack of knowledge = reckless action. Good intentions and adequate knowledge = apt, duely considered and ethical action.
Quoting Tom Storm
The content of the word in this case can always be expanded/ explained in more depth if required - as the Truth can be examined superficially or in depth but neither changes its quality as inherently truthful. One can explore it further before deciding or decide despite investing no effort in understanding it (blind faith -option 1 or ignorance -option 2)..
Accepting that principle, it follows that no one should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread.
And no one has done that. Choice is the principle of the trilemma set out into the OP.
One has the free will to share it, ignore it or oppose it. But their hand is forced in making one of those three choices. However, in no instance is any single person deciding anything on behalf of everyone else.
The outcome would always be the summation of every individuals personal decision.
So you're correct despite it not really having any impact on the actual ultimatum itself.
Of course someone has done that. The so-called "Word" would not have gotten out there in the first place if no one had done that.
And who propagates it? One person cannot propagate the "Word" by themselves alone. Especially if they're ignored by everyone they communicate with (option 2). It takes two (or more) to tango (see option 1).
Things only spread by numbers, by co-operation and accordance, not by ignorance (option2) or silencing (option 3) but everyone makes a choice in the end.
Anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread.
No, as I see it. You have this scenario -
Quoting Benj96
People may decide that this god is a prick and that the truth they are peddling is bad for humanity. I may do this in full understanding of the content of that truth.
For instance: let's pretend that the Bible is true. There are plenty of folk who consider the Bible to be full of evil advice (it's pro slavery, misogynist, homophobic, sanctions genocide, etc). People may chose to oppose this truth in full knowledge of its content. Many people would consider Yahweh (as described) to be a Mafia boss style tyrant.
You seem to make an assumption that truth - even if understood - is always welcome. They know exactly what is going on and what this God stands for but consider this god objectionable.
So option four remains on the table. The active opposition.
But a theist, creating such a thought experiment will already have made the assumption that only ignorance would oppose any truth presented by a god. I would maintain that this can't be demonstrated and is likely to be wrong.
Where in the Scriptures does someone declare this?
There are those who claim that such a person exists. Big difference.
However, one can only decide for themselves whether they wish to spread it. And if they do share it, they too can be ignored or actively chastised/put down/oppressed.
I fail to see how they decide for "everyone" beyond themselves specifically, the only thing they decide is who they tell in their immediate circle. After all they're only responsible for their own actions.
One cannot predict the reception of a message by others.
And if one cannot predict the choices of others, the cannot decide the choices of others. They can merely offer them.
I see evangelism as being essential to Christianity. "The Word" is understood to be the word of God, and it is believed that those who accept it will be saved and those who don't will be damned. So those who accept the Word accept that it is the ultimate truth for all, and that the "good news" should be spread so that everyone has access to it.
Well just to note a few: in Christianity, Jesus declares he is the son of God (has a direct relationship) and is interpreted as the earthly embodiment of said entity. In Islam, Muhammmed declares himself a voice of God- channeling the word.
The dilemma of the OP however is somewhat universal based on Human nature, and could be applied to several historical instances with the same overriding result - a refuge in obscurity or overt proclamations followed by subsequent martyrdom
My interpretation of this is that whoever is "saved" or "damned" is up to their own conscience/moral compass. Guilt and shame is a powerful and self-inflicted force.
Witnessing someone championing human rights and being mercilessly tortured for their outspoken and brave defence of the people against those with a more perverse agenda might evoke guilt and shame in those that didn't feel they did enough to stand by what they felt was inherently right - regardless of whether their hesitation was out of fear / self preservation or whatever.
In this sense, when one is exposed to the "word" so to speak they become their own judge and executioner, based on their inner conflict and sense of morality rather than some almighty non-earthly father/judge.
For me it's human nature, it's own ideals, and its own resulting consequences. Nothing more nothing less..
The use of the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man" have different roles in the writings before the Christian era. Something to be pursued in a different conversation, perhaps.
Putting aside the various folk who presume to speak for God, that is different from a human being saying: "I am God." If that rebuttal is of no interest to you, the difference is very important to other people.
They are very different, you're correct.
In one case we have those "allegedly" speaking on behalf of a God with no evidence. On the other hand you have the one saying "they are God" and the embodiment of the evidence. "You see me don't you?"
Then people say "Prove it." They say, well, those that believe me without need for proof will garner me the limelight. The rest will attack me relentlessly, and I'll be murdered despite only proposing we treat one another as equals, but I'm happy to succumb to the viscious abuse of the worst of you to instill some semblance of the message that we need to do better by one another.
Witnessing the person being bullied to death by the world then serves to echo their point, right? I mean, that's surely fuel for self reflection one would imagine, and if it isn't - then it speaks volumes of the lack of empathy.
Imagine someone saying "let's be nice" and being beaten bloodied for the very popularity of that sentiment because it threatens the most hostile/selfish people out there. Would you not feel bad for them?
There's not many things I would consider godly, but such an act is certainly and undeniably selfless in my eyes.
Sure, humans decide what is deemed "Word of God". Is that neccessarily opposed to what inspires them? Why so? Must they be in opposition, at odds?
If someone was willing to put their own wellbeing on the line to spread knowledge/truth, cooperation and foster good intentions, and gave you a choice to agree with this agenda, ignore it or oppose it, what would you choose?
The original OP outlines the 3 options and the consequences for your consideration.
Are you withdrawing the claim that first person claims to be God (other than God) can be found in the Scriptures?
[parenthesis added]
"As opposed" in the way I used it means "as distinct from" not "opposed to". Its common parlance. If something inspires me, I do not have to conclude that it therefore must inspire others.
Quoting Benj96
That a simplistic picture in my view. If the person was merely saying "we should be good to one another" then that would be hard to argue with. But its not as simple as that when it comes to religion.
No I'm not withdrawing it. Proceed as you will.
Quote the sources.
Indeed - there's still those matters of foreskin, the rights of women, abortion, etc, etc. How do we rule out a god (if one exists) who is also an intolerant pissant? What if the truth is horrible?
How complex do you want morality to be? Would you like it obscure, esoteric, out of reach, unintuitive?
I think you'll find most religions are -at their core - when removing all the arbitrary fluff/tripe and dogma, about doing right by one another. That is hard to argue,.unless you lack any regard/empathy for people- in which case I'm sure one could conjure all sorts of rationalisation for not doing right by one another.
I would imagine the truth would be horrible for those that can't stand it. I imagine they would be the intolerant pissants in this case.
Matters like abortion, women's rights etc are all important and need due discussion but have little to do with the core of what was set out in the OP.
You mean the God of the Old Testament? The Gnostics believed that God was a flawed, self-important lesser deity. On the other hand, I think each, the approval and the disapproval of Yahweh, are just one story among meany others. Humans seem to need to select one story and declare it the literal truth. What if it's stories all the way down?
Then we don't have to rule out a god or any particular god, and nor do we have to rule one in. We just need to recognize they are all just stories, and that no one knows the absolute truth or for that matter any truth beyond what is observed and what is tautologously so.
I don't believe morality is either complex or dependent on religion. At least when it comes to the most significant moral issues. Those regarding theft, assault, rape, murder, child abuse and so on. Morality grows out of pragmatic social necessity.
So, I see the religious aspects as being unnecessary to morality, rationally speaking. Although it could be argued that they are emotionally or psychologically necessary for some people.
That's' a very limited account. What if god is a mafia thug like Yahweh? He is evil. The truth may be horrible because it is horrible and we are correct not to stand for it. We can definitively visualize a version of reality where if there is a god that god is nefarious.
Well, Quoting Benj96
You are trying to limit your accoutn so that the flaws dontl show. You have mentioned 'the truth'. The question remains what is the nature of this truth? If it advocates for slavery and genocide and violates the rights of minorities and women, then this truth is problematic and quite possibly evil.
The context is everything in this thought experiment. As they say, the devil is in the detail. :wink:
Sure, that one is clearly a prick. But we can imagine any god being a nasty piece of work. It does not follow that if there is a god and that god holds the truth that this truth is ipso facto beneficial. This is only the case if you play the definitional game wherein you decide that god is identical with goodness. Which invariably makes anything god does good because he did it. Whether he's drowning all the men, women and children on the planet, or allowing AIDS to tear through the gay community.
Quoting Janus
Indeed. And as a social species, where strength comes through community, it would be difficult for us to survive without codes of conduct like this.
Yes, that's true. But this would only be a problem if we could somehow infallibly know the awful truth and would then be left with the choice of either rejecting the demand for worship and accepting whatever punishment that would entail or accepting the unacceptable out of the desire to avoid punishment.
The gall of that God. How would you have handled that one? How long do humans get to live in your universe? Go ahead, tell God how it should be done. I can give my version next. Love this game. (I've actually given considerable thought to this one.)
I'm not trying to limit it. It is vague /generalised already. What highly specified dogma have I asserted other than that if a fundamental truth exists and is embodied, it will be persecuted and attempts to destroy it will likely be made even when there are alternative approaches available.
Quoting Tom Storm
It doesn't. The truth is just facts/knowledge, telling it is education and honesty. Concealing it is deceit/lying. And ignoring it is ignorant. Simple.
Knowledge by itself doesn't commit any crimes. It just is. It exists despite what is done with it -much like money does. What people use knowledge for (intention) is when the truth can be used for malice (eg the truth of nuclear fission being used to create the atomic bomb). No one is going to argue the truth about nuclear physics is evil just because of atomic bombs. The truth didn't do that. People did that using it (through intention).
Remember truth has a knowledge aspect and an ethical aspect. Creating a bomb is using knowledge of truth without acknowledging the ethical implications (the truth of harm/devastation) that comes with the bomb.
Quoting Tom Storm
You're absolutely right. However context is different for everyone because language is interpretative and abstract concepts like "God" are heavily loaded.
I have contextualised the OP as best and as succinctly as I can and yet here we are talking about abortion, slavery and women's rights. You dont like organised religions. I get it. Neither do I. Theyre riddled with corruptions. But im qualifying a God concept in a very simple and straight forward way with very rational and predictable consequences and cite that it reflects a very small portion of scriptures -not the entirety of scripture.
Otherwise, please highlight where these words: abortion, slavery, women's rights etc appeared in the OP. I'll be waiting.
No it doesn't. It may be pragmatic to be an oppressive fascist dictator as its a very effective way of exerting your will and getting things done. Doesn't mean that it's moral despite how effective it might be on paper.
Morality is not about pragmatism, its about empathy. Its being able to "walk in the shoes" of another and see why your actions may harm them.
That's the difference between taking power by force (pragmatic but not ethical) and asking for power (more cumbersome but ethical).
If you are given the option to do anything with absolutely no consequences: You can go about it morally or practically. Practically one can steal. You wont be penalised in this case after all. Morally, one can reason as to why there would be greater overall benefit if they oversee the resource.
Quoting Janus
Religions are what happen when a significant truth is appointed deep and enduring value to a group such that a lifestyle and culture grows around it. They're not neccessary, sure, but they're are the name of the phenomenon that grows around fairly universal, wise and ethical (therefore agreeable) insights.
Scientific method is another dogma that grew around around truth - that what is stable/consistent, repeatable and can be tested/is observable, is likely to endure as such (be objective) reliable/useful/informative.
It's not called a religion because by its exploration of truth is narrowed or focused toward the object. Religions on the other hand permit a subjective or personifiable aspect of truth (its anthropomorphism into the concept of a "God").
*Also note that science is ideally steered by ethics. So even though its not a religion it is essentially "contemplate and expose the truth without doing harm" - a close parallel to religious dogma -but the methodology/parameters are set differently.
Of course it doesn't. If they hold the truth then you don't know it. If they tell you, then you know it, and can use it for your own devices - beneficial/harmless or harmful. It's only beneficial if chosen to be so. But those that make the choice are culpable for the consequences as they are aware (truth-knowers).
Of course you didn't. You seem determined to not understand the point.
I am saying that truth may be deliberately and carefully rejected by people because it is assessed as appalling.
One such account of 'truth' allegedly from god is The Bible with its evil stories and directives (slavery, genocide, etc).
This goes to my point about an Option 4 - that people may reject truth in full knowledge of what they are rejecting. You don't seem to understand this point and keep banging on about ignorance.
But this point would work just as well with The Koran or any other holy book full of despicable information, generally held to be truth directly from god.
You cannot assume that a god represents goodness. The so called truth may well be despicable. Which is how many view the alleged truth contained in the Koran or the Bible.
I wasn't talking about what is pragmatic for individuals, but for societies. I think you'll find that theft, rape, assault and murder are illegal even in fascist dictatorships. The fact that those in power can sometimes get away with these acts doesn't change the fact that they are generally unacceptable to people. Imagine a society in which there was no punishment, other than other individuals taking revenge, for those who committed such acts. It would be anything but a harmonious society. There is honour even among thieves
Quoting Benj96
Religions only flourish when they satisfy, or seem to satisfy, social needs. Of course, that includes the need for the authorities to exercise their power. How long do you think a religion that promoted free-for-all theft, deception of others, assault, rape and murder would last?
.