Recently I have undertaken some outreach for Aue, consisting purely of joining two new Discord servers and naturally allowing Aue as a subject to arise. One server concerns a new Satanist movement, and the other is a general discussion server. The reactions, unfortunately, have largely been hostile. Only one person of many has been receptive to Aue, though it is not likely they will pursue adherence.
I have possibly identified some critical issues which prevented fruitful discussion of Aue, instead attracting cobative pseudo-debate.
I’m the founder. This fact makes discussion an incredibly tricky task, as people tend to conflate Aue with who I am as a person, and consider my discussion of Aue to be an egotistical exercise.
There are few adherents. At this moment in time it is practically just myself. People are not likely to take a religion or similar endeavours “seriously” if it has so few adherents championing the cause, or even giving candid testimonial. I have previously quipped that each new adherent makes gaining another adherent 10% easier, up to 100% easier than it is now. That’s still rather an uphill battle.
A steadfast audience. The membership of these servers is largely people who have already settled on a religion, or framework of understanding the world, and not only is Aue’s comparatively alien approach not likely to be well-received, but even if understood would not likely be considered as a valid alternative to their existing beliefs. In-group-out-group mentality of both the religious and the atheist of these servers was very apparent.
Aue is approachable, but not readable. It is tough to uphold a difficult to understand doctrine, and claim with enough sensible reading and reflection that one can understand it. Aue is a very approachable text due to its length, but it is not a very readable text due to its complexity. There is a lot to unpack, and people do not appreciate that, even if an adherent of Aue might.
The equality in exegesis is odd. As a faithful adherent, I uphold Aue as not necessarily infallible, but far more worthy as a framework of meaning than a work to be critiqued. I have carefully authored it for eventual agreeableness, timelessness, as a heuristic to guide its adherents efficiently. I do make available a lot of exegesis (my opinions, verse descriptions, discussions with others, etc), however, I do not uphold this as a part of Aue itself. I am certainly fallible, but Aue is condensed and laboured upon to make it less so. The personal works I put alongside Aue are held in equal regard to any present and future interpretations by other adherents. I am not aware of any other religion which so explicitly holds its founder’s views in equal regard to other views—it is a strange concept, and difficult for people to appreciate.
It has given me a lot to think about in terms of how to “package” and present Aue to others, and to whom it should be presented. Fortunately, the issues should be alleviated with more adherents, as different perspectives, and more credibility, will lend to better future discussion.