#said disagreements aren't even a big deal. i just don't like it when opinions don't align bc idk what to do and i do NOT want to change mine

[kaleidoscope1967eyes]

oh i realized why i hate disagreeing with people so much... it's because i spent YEARS trying to be the Most Agreeable Person Ever, and i lowkey panic when i just can't do that

[captious-solarian]

Hm I'd place it a little earlier than the Enlightenment. In Christianity, Tommy Aquinas was really big on the "exhaustive framework" thing, and while he systematised it, I don't think he started it.

In Islam it seems to be a bit earlier too, though I don't know enough to disentangle the real history from the retcons.

I've spent a while talking to fundamentalist Jews, and their rationale for not actively proselytising about the Noahide laws is obvious: Jews aren't really popular and in a position of power, so it seems unwise to invite even more trouble. The world is full of evil anyway, and people who'd listen probably don't need to be told, they already intuitively get it.

I'm not actually sure of the exact psychology of people who say neither "the Noahide laws are true and important, being a Hindu and having gay sex are horrible" nor "the Noahide laws don't real, those things are fine". Obvious practical reasons still apply, though.

I agree with the many people who said many religions' truth claims are "important for my people, but not for yours".

Even when a religion is more universalising than that, not all truth claims are equally important: perhaps (in your opinion) it's vitally important to perform rituals or the harvest will fail, but the specific mechanism isn't important enough to proselytise about.

Note also that many religions' claims about the world aren't thought of as religious, but as background assumptions of the culture they developed in, e.g. a bunch of religions start out from the assumption of reincarnation and intend to convince you to do something specific about it. There's no coordinated response for exposure to a big group that simply doesn't believe in reincarnation in the first place, and adherents are left to deal with it like with any other disagreement.

Another variant I've seen a lot of, for example in Sikhi, is that you can't just tell people what's up, it won't take. They have to realise for themselves that you're right about everything.

Overall I don't really see a missing mood.

non-proselytory religion obviously makes sense from a sociological perspective, religion isnt *for* being truth-claims, its *for* its social effects, but its so weird from the perspective (which surely its believers must inhabit?) that it *is* truth-claims. like...if your religion is true, and all other religions are false, it seems weird to be uninterested in spreading that truth! except insofar as you think it efforts to spread it will be unsuccessful, i guess. or if you think it doesnt...matter? thats a strange thing to think. "god is real, but it's not a big deal". maybe, "god is real, and its important for my people, but not important for your people"