Wild question 2
Carrying forward from this entry but not necessarily using those wild assumptions as prerequisites. This wild idea runs in parallel but could be true on its own.

This new wild thought started when I heard a commentator on EWTN (the Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary network) bashing the constantly splitting denominations of the Protestant world. He said that two new denominations are spawned every day! I don't know if that's true, but I DO know that it's healthy.

Basic unquestionable fact: NATURE HATES CENTRALIZATION. Everything works better when it finds the right level of local control, which isn't necessarily total local control but pretty damn close.

Applying this to religion, it's blatantly obvious that decentralized religions work and grow, and one-man cults like Rome or Canterbury do not work. When you grant total control to a central bureaucracy, you are exactly and specifically giving your soul to Satan.

Now ... Constant splitting ... two denominations every day ... Hmm. What does that remind you of?

Yup.

Here's where the wild hypothesis starts.

Consider religion as a behavior-altering symbiont of the human animal. Perhaps via the gut biome as I proposed before, perhaps through some other mechanism.

How does a symbiont extend its spread? Two main ways. (1) It can reproduce into newly hatched host animals. (2) It can be a virus, or use a virus, to transfer genes without transferring the actual symbiont creature.

Religious symbionts use both. (1) is pretty much automatic, so the variation is on (2). Judaism refuses (2), relying solely on absolute secular power and infinite wealth. Rome emphasizes (1) by encouraging large hatches, but tries (2) sometimes. Muslims and Protestants strongly emphasize (2), occasionally even forgetting to do (1). (eg Shakers, Grahamites.)

= = = = =

If a symbiont wants to maximize its spread, it should alter the host's behavior in ways that improve the health and extend the life of the host; and it should adjust its own genome to match variations in the host.

Unsurprisingly, belief symbionts that stick closely to Natural Law are the best spreaders. The Natural Law recorded in Leviticus, as I've said 67,145 times now, is just a synopsis of long experimentation to find what works.

Also unsurprisingly, belief symbionts that adjust their own genome do a better job of spreading the genome. Human communities thrive in all sorts of different geographies, with different diets and different languages and different cultures. Any successful plant or animal or bacterium switches on various parts of its genome to fit different geographies and cultures. Same with belief symbionts.

Rome's effort to keep one unadjusted genome under the absolute command of one Satan-infected autocrat is doomed to fail. Similar efforts by "mainline" Protestants have already failed because they didn't inculcate the habit of large hatches. Beliefs that spawn a profusion of denominations will survive and grow.

Final question: Do those variations improve communication with God? Communication requires constant searching for the best propagation path. In radio you're seeking a frequency and antenna angle that maximizes skip. In language you're always trying to find the vocabulary and sentence style that will resonate your message into the receiver's tuning. Does the belief symbiont adjust its genomic details (ie liturgy, music, prayer forms) to maximize coupling between this set of humans and the Big Receiver?

Labels: Grand Blueprint, Natural law = Sharia law

  ¶ 4:59 AM