Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Blissex's avatar

The central fact of the christian faith is that it does not require believers to sacrifice *others* to their deity.Most other religions required/require to offer their deity or deities sacrifices as "bribes", to win their favour, or sacrifice someone else as a scapegoat to win their forgiveness.

The purpose of the self-sacrifice of Yeshua/Jesus was to put an end to all that, the self-sacrifice to end all sacrifices.In christianity there is no requirement to offer sacrifices to win the deity's favour, but the deity's favour is won by making offers to the poor, sick, etc.; there is a complete prohibition on sacrificing someone else to win the deity's forgiveness, and the deity's forgiveness is won by repentance and making amends, that is by changing behaviour and being better to others. Some christians believe in pleasing their deity or getting forgiveness by acts of self-sacrifice "in imitation of Christ", but that is not quite christian; no suffering pleases the christian deity, but only faith and deeds that help others, either by generosity or by making amends. Indeed Yeshua/Jesus self-sacrificed for others, and to put an end to sacrifices.There are other religions that reject sacrificing others to bribe or appease their deities, and they tend to be much more beneficial religions than the others.

Expand full comment
Xerographica's avatar

Willingness to pay and willingness to sacrifice are the same thing. Making a sacrifice credibly communicates and quantifies preference intensity, as opposed to the cheap talk surveys that Hanson frequently posts on Twitter.

Why is it necessary to effectively determine preference intensity? Consider a couple of cavemen...

Bob: Hey man, I’m so hungry. Can I have some food?Frank: No, I told you to conserve your food.Bob: But I’m dying of hunger!Frank: Oh really? Are you truly that hungry?Bob: Yeah, I’m super super hungry!!!!Frank: So why don’t I hear your stomach growling?Bob: I just drank a lot of water. Frank: Hmmm… that’s a plausible story. Here’s a deal. I’ll give you some food if you give me your bear claw necklace. Bob: No way!!!Frank: I guess you’re not that hungry.

It’s advantageous for Bob to use cheap talk so that he can freely gain a precious resource. In order for Frank to avoid misallocating a precious resource, it’s advantageous for him to effectively gauge/test/measure Bob’s actual level of interest, which is the point of trade.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...