Split (1)

train · 213k rows

comment stringlengths 1 9.49k	context sequencelengths 0 760
> I can counter this argument! This discussion is highly anecdotal though. I think every human has one end goal: Love. To be loved, to love, love. People that hurt do so because they want to be loved but have lost their way. People that help do so because they love, or want love, and that could never be selfish because what difference does it make if the help is all the same in the end? Love is all the same.	[ "/u/a2ew (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI just pinched myself hard enough to cause pain and leave a mark. I expected no happiness out of this. I experienced no feelings of happiness out of this.\nMy motive was just to prove the easily provable point that humans only motive is not happiness. Just observing humans doing things will also reflect this truth repeatedly.\nYou could argue that self happiness is one of the strongest human motivators, but clearly it isn't the only human motive.", ">\n\nPinching yourself did bring you happiness, although you may not be fully conscious of it. Maybe it brought you happiness because you thought it would be a factor in proving your point, or maybe it brought you happiness because you liked the feeling. How it brought you happiness doesn’t matter. \nYou wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t bring you happiness", ">\n\nYou're wrong. It didn't bring me happiness. I know this because I experienced it personally. You insist it did without any knowledge or evidence only because if it didn't that disproves your point.\nTyping this comment brings me no happiness, yet I'm doing it.", ">\n\nSo let me ask this: if not for your own benefit, why did you make the comment? Why didyou pinch yourself? \nIt's easy to say \"nuh uh\". It's harder to actually really justify your position. Are you saying you don't like being right? You don't enjoy answering reddit cmvs? You don't want to participate in the community? If all that is so, then why are you here? If it's not so, are you not then motivated by a personal desire to enjoy yourself? To find happiness?", ">\n\nLazy copy/paste from another response because I think it fits here also:\n...\nI could have chosen to look at cute animal pictures or watch a funny video. Both of those things would have brought me more happiness than engaging with this thread. So why did I do it? What was my motive? It clearly wasn't seeking happiness.\nI'm not sure what my motive is. But the fact that there is more than one motive to choose from means OP's claim that there is only 1 motive must be incorrect.", ">\n\nPerhaps you chose to reply here because engaging in this discourse makes you a more intelligent and well-rounded person, while watching cat videos most certainly would not? You become happier as a result of further enhancing your skills.", ">\n\nThis gets posted quite a bit and inevitably relies on the fact that the poster has redefined selfishness to define any voluntary action when most english speakers use selfish to describe behavior that priorities oneself unreasonably to the detriment of others.\nYes -- people, when they're making conscious choices, do things for reasons. You might donate to charity because it makes you feel good that you're improving the conditions of those less fortunate than you. You might leap in front of a bus to protect a child because you don't think you could live with being the kind of person who allowed a child to perish. You might rob a bank because you want money and you don't care about the emotional distress and physical risk you'll cause the teller.\nThose are all reasons that the doer found satisfactory (I guess you could say that made them happy, although I think happiness is more complicated than that). but clearly we can make distinctions as to the quality of each justification relative to the impact of the action.", ">\n\nYour first point effectively means nothing other than you recognize the difference. Wouldn't this then make it easier to respond to, not more difficult? Or do you find the question tedious? \nYou didn't actually attempt to prove him wrong as much as you emphatically agreed with him. You listed no examples where someone does things for no reason, only that there are reasons someone would do good things(all personally beneficial).", ">\n\nWell I am curioous why you think it is a negative view or something you want to get rid of. I don't understand the negative implications of it. \nHow is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?\nAnd what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?", ">\n\nIt’s a negative view because I find myself using it to justify people’s actions that aren’t just. It’s also oversimplifies humans and the reasoning as to why we do the things we do. I would like to believe that humans are complex than this. \n\nHow is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?\n\nThat in itself is not bad. I’m saying that having the ideology is disadvantageous to me and that is why I want to change it. \n\nAnd what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?\n\nI don’t think there is any alternative.", ">\n\nEverything is super simple if you reduce them down far enough. Humans are complex, but if you boil every possible motivation to do something as “happiness” then they stop being as complex. Then when you discard any morality around WHY they’re “happy” and call all happiness seeking as equally “selfish,” then they’re even simpler. \nNobody has ever used “selfless” to refer to a person who does something that they have absolutely no reason to do, and hate doing. Most people would consider somebody who does things that only makes them miserable mentally ill. And yet the words selfish and selfless continue to exist.\nWhy? Because when people use those terms they’re talking about the reasons behind a person’s happiness. Somebody who is made happy by helping other people is considered selfless, while somebody who is only made happy by hoarding wealth or power is considered selfish. \nThe myriad of reasons we feel what we feel are what makes humans complex. The end result of actually feeling the emotions is just a biochemical response and can seem simple if you remove all other context.", ">\n\nSometimes people sacrifice their lives, for other people's happiness, survival or various other motives.\nThis means they no longer get to experience happiness, at least earthly happiness.", ">\n\nWell they sacrifice their lives because it benefits them to save others.\nFor example, in some religions kids are taught that if they die in a heroic way, or if they die for their God, they will go to heaven. This is why they find happiness in sacrificing their life. But the motivation was still their own happiness.", ">\n\nAtheists sacrifice their lives for others too. People voluntarily spend their final moments in pain while fully expecting no happiness to come of it.", ">\n\nI understand that atheist do it too. That was only an example. I agree with your first sentence. I only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.", ">\n\n\nI only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.\n\nBut how? You agreed that some people sacrifice their lives, and the only advantage was that maybe there's some religious reward. So take away the religious award, and presume that the person didn't sacrifice themselves as a suicide measure, and what \"selfish happiness\" is left?", ">\n\nLike most circular disprovable hypothesis this is also probably false. It is intellectually identical to something like \"god\". \nBeyond that trap, you can certainly point to depressed people who relieve misery of the deepest level bit only to make things tolerable. They find no happiness, and don't think it even a possibility. If you don't believe happiness can exist for you generally or experiential then it can't motivate you.\nOr...you can look at it as a consequence not a motivator. I would stop a bullet from hitting my child even if it made me sad. It just happens that it wouldn't. It is not the motivator, just a consequence of following and achieving you more root motivation.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is not selfish to pursue happiness; it is selfish to pursue happiness at the expense of other people’s.", ">\n\nThe only issue I can see with this is that your definition of selfish mentions \"lacking consideration for others,\" and people are capable of considering and acting for others in a way that is irrelevant to your own needs. You could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire, but I think it's an area to consider.", ">\n\n\nYou could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire\n\nI agree with that argument.", ">\n\nI understand the reasoning for this view. It simplifies people and creates a baseline for every act a person could commit. If only happiness was the root cause for everything people do. If it were, I think we'd be able to understand each other. \nAt the very least, psychologists would stop tearing their hair out trying to quantify motivation. \nThere's a LOT that goes into it. There's roughly four approaches, I think? Behaviorist, Humanistic, The hierarchy of needs, and Cognitive. But Im not sure any of them would simplify all human motivation as a pursuit of happiness. \nWhy? Mainly, what is happiness? Think seriously: How do you define the state of being happy? What does that mean? I know, not something you usually think about in an internet thread. \nSo according to the oxford dictionary: The state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one's circumstances.\nCool. What's pleasure? \nPleasure: a state of feeling or being happy or satisfied\nWow, that was circular af, thanks oxford. Fine, what chemicals make happiness?\nScience says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.\nSo I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?", ">\n\nThis was extremely insightful. \n\nScience says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.\n\nSo I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?\nYes, if we think that it will bring us pleasure.", ">\n\nLet's say We know it will. It is a fact. So let's say this magical brain jar is offered to you. Science can put your brain in serotonin, dopamine, endorphin mix. \nDo you accept?", ">\n\nNo I don’t only because I don’t actually think it will make me happier. Science says it will, but it sounds terrible. It sounds like hell in my opinion.", ">\n\nWhy? I am telling you that in this scenario, you will be happy all the time if you do this.", ">\n\nToo absolute.", ">\n\nI'm not sure this position is actually that meaningful.\nThere's still a difference between a person who is happy to make others suffer and a person who is happy to make others happy. And we should try to train ourselves - and our children - to be happy at the happiness of others, and sad at the sadness of others. \nAll your position does is change virtue from \"helps people even if it makes them sad\" to \"has learned to be happy when helping others\", which is not, in practice, all that different. I think it sounds different to a kind of person who really doesn't value feelings very much, but the whole point of kindness, of goodness to other people, was feelings in the first place. If anything, an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and +1 unit to me is better than an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and -1 unit to me.", ">\n\nAll of this seems to be true, but it doesn’t disprove or change my view. It was insightful though.", ">\n\n\nHumans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest.\n\nI'll pick apart the word \"only\" in that statement. Humans are social animals, and we're perfectly capable of doing things that benefit the group at the expense of ourselves. In evolutionary biology, altruism is behavior that increases the fitness of others at the expense of your own fitness. Like when someone sacrifices themselves to rescue others, they are trading away all future profits and pleasures for the benefit of others. That simply doesn't add up from a personal utility perspective. Indeed, if everyone always selfishly pursued their own immediate interests at the expense of group survival, we would have died out as a species; living together and sharing resources meant making compromises on our personal freedom and happiness.", ">\n\nI have £5 in my wallet, I'm heading to the bar to buy a pint which will make me happy.\nInstead I give the £5 to charity and head home.\nThe act of giving money made me feel some satisfaction but that's because I was concerned about others. It also cost me the happiness of having a pint, so overall my happiness may be lower then not giving the money.", ">\n\nDevil's advocate: \nWhatever choice would have brought you more happiness is hypothetical. However, the decision you made on the spot is what matters. If it was possible to thoroughly analyze all factors that went through your head at the time, your donation was still out of self-interest and at the time outweighed the negatives. \nFor example, even if you didn't \"gain\" happiness, you avoided suffering from guilt/shame etc.", ">\n\nIf my expected opportunity cost of happiness was higher than the happiness generated though then I haven't acted to maximize my happiness, and I feel no guilt or shame for having a pint instead of giving money to charity. so that argument doesn't hold up.", ">\n\nThe problem is that you assume it didn't maximize your happiness. The decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it. In retrospect we can evaluate that it was the \"wrong decision\", sure, but not based on the information you had at the time.\nWe're speaking hypotheticals so neither if us can prove our position nor do I know how much you like beer or charities (guilt was just an example). Personally, I can't think of a single conscious decision human beings could make that's truly selfless.", ">\n\n\nThe decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it.\n\nI'm saying the opposite, humans can and do things that they don't believe will maximise their happiness. All of these actions are therefore selfless.", ">\n\nThe usual problem here is with what does it mean to be selfish. \nBecause being concerned chiefly with your own personal profit and pleasure as defined in your \"every action is ultimately concerned with ones own search for pleasure\" is not necessarily the same as \"lacking consideration for others\".\nLike there's a difference between long and short term selfishness. Like a shortsighted act of selfishness might be to steal something because you want it. You have it now someone else doesn't, clear win-lose situation. But you could also cooperate with others form friendships and relationships that make you both better off because of it. You could still argue that \"... but ultimately it makes you happy\", but that's fundamentally a different set of actions than the short sighted version of selfishness. The letter kind of selfishness might even lead you to perform acts that would, out of context, be described as altruism. So are you still talking about the same thing and would the long term selfishness still fit the \"lacking considerations for others\" part? Because maybe you draw happiness from the happiness of other people so your happiness relies chiefly on their happiness.", ">\n\nYour argument is reductionary. All cars have tires. So all cars are tires? It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. \nEven altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego. A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. \nThis is more so a lense that speaks about you the observer than it does the subject. \nLogic is a good tool but a bad master. You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you. Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience. Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊", ">\n\nThank you \n\nYour argument is reductionary. All cars have tires. So all cars are tires? It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. \n\nWell it’s more like me saying that all cars are at least 51% (or majority) tires. Now imagine the definition of “tires” is “majority of tires” (similar to how the definition of selfish is concerned chiefly with your own personal pleasure). That means that all cars are tires. \n\nEven altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego. A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. \n\nThis is similar to what my point is. \n\nLogic is a good tool but a bad master. You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you. Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience. Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊\n\nI think that being disproved is what I need to get rid of this ideology and that’s why I posted this. You have a great day as well.", ">\n\nHow exactly do you expect someone to change your view? Because it seems that anything someone argues does not bring happiness, you would argue it does. If I have a piece of information that would hurt someone else and I withhold that information to spare their wellbeing, even if they told me they didn't want to know, is that still selfish? Have I brought myself happiness even if the information is painful and I think they should know but telling them would unwillingly hurt them?", ">\n\n\nI want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked. \n\nTell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this? \nWalk by a homeless man and you give him money, it can be used as evidence for this being true. Don't give him money and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Kick him and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you happy and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you sad and it can be used as evidence for this being true. \nNo matter what you do in any situation, it can be twisted into being evidence as this being true. There's no actual substance to this idea because it's completely impossible to disprove and it has no predictive power.", ">\n\nI would like to believe that this can be disproved because I admitted it is not beneficial to have it. I also admit that I don’t see that it can be logically disproved, but I have hope. You may be right. \n\nTell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this?\n\nI don’t have an answer to this question.", ">\n\nYou're missing my point. Imagine a scientific theory like this \"all objects go the direction they want to go\" and then any time I saw an object go any direction I said \"Look it's poof of my theory!\". You could never disprove this, but at the same time you wouldn't have to. It's unfalsifiable and untestable. It makes no predictions. It's a completely meaningless theory. Yours is the same.\nIt relies on a twisted definition of selfish. Is the person who gives $5 to charity really equally selfish as the one who steals $5 from charity?", ">\n\nEvery situation can be trivially reduced, this does not mean it is reasonable to do so. Some will say that, because we can imagine a selfish interpretation for every interaction, that all interactions must therefor be selfish. That is, that altruism does not exist because we have decided all interactions are zero-sum. \nBut all interactions are not zero-sum, and just saying it's so doesn't make it so. \nIf you are starving, and I give you my cookie, I'm not suddenly as asshole if I feel good about it. I did a good thing and I feel good about that. That's a win win, a scenario where both parties benefit. \nIf someone then comes and says, \"But, Loaf, you only gave him a cookie so you would feel good!\" they have now said that either I am lying, or I am delusional. Either everyone in the world is pretending that goodness is a thing so that we can trick each other, or everyone who thinks goodness is a thing is actually crazy.\nWhen modeling human interactions, it's not really helpful to reduce them so far that we conclude that most people are deluded. At that point, we aren't really talking about human interactions. We are talking about \"well, genetic expressions prompt you to do this and that, and hormones are making you do XYZ.\" Again, now we have reduced things past the point of usefulness. There's merit in discussing the role of smaller elements to the emergent properties they together create, but that's not the only place we find merit. \nConsider the validity of saying, \"A sandwich is just atoms,\" or \"A painting is just pixels.\" \nSo to when we say \"A good action isn't good if you are motivated by feeling good.\" It's not useful, and we are distracted by its triviality. \nReject the zero-sum approach. You can do something for the sake of another person, and you can simultaneously feel good about doing that.", ">\n\n\nSelfish: of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. \n\nEmphasis on the bold bit. That doesn't apply to your argument. Eg:\n\nThe only reason that one helps others is for his own personal benefit: his happiness\n\nWe don't help others necessarily because we want to be happy. We often get happiness from doing so, but for it to qualify as selfishness by your definition, that happiness needs to be the main objective. That is not the case.", ">\n\nI've meet along people in the medical who would love to quit because they don't enjoy but stay because they feel it would be wrong not to use their experience and education to continue to help despite they hate actually having to do it.If you place other people's positive experience above your own how can you be pursuing happiness.Sure you could say it's out of guilt but reducing guilt is More a middle ground position then a positive development.", ">\n\n\nlacking consideration for others\n\nEven if my happiness is my ultimate goal, if that happiness is derived from consideration for others, then it is not selfish. Self-interested, sure, but not selfish.", ">\n\nThis is a hard argument to debunk because “happiness” can mean basically anything. Are you referring to pleasure? Satisfaction?, fulfillment? \nI can buy a new today and it will make me feel “happy” for a bit.\nI can save the money and feel “happy” about that. \nSee what I mean?", ">\n\nThis claim is an unfalsifiable self-fulfilling prophecy, and thus it is impossible to change your view. You've basically defined happiness as \"any reason why anyone does anything.\" A person fighting a murderer to save a child is by your definition \"selfish\" because they either find gratification from doing the right thing or would otherwise feel guilty for having done nothing.\nAny example a commenter could possibly give will fall prey to your circular reasoning. You'd simply reject any altruistic motive and claim that all motives are fundamentally based on \"happiness,\" even though you haven't defined what \"happiness\" even is.\nIf we really boil your view down it's really just an argument that free will doesn't exist.", ">\n\nThe human capacity for empathy allows us to make other people well being part of our own well being. You can deconstruct the mechanics of altruism but that doesn’t change what it is. Of course there is an internal mechanism. Sure you end up at self interest but that self interest is one that has the capacity to incorporate others into it. If we never evolved empathy what “self-interest” looks like we be very different.\nSo you can say it’s all self-interest but you have to ask what each self interest is. Someone who finds fulfillment taking care of babies cares more for others than someone who finds fulfillment eating them.\nA related point is that frameworks that center around judging individuals moral character often don’t make much sense and judging outcomes is much more sensible when it comes to actually defining a definition of ethics, even if in application judgements are implemented.", ">\n\nYou're 100% right", ">\n\nYou are mistaken about what selfish means.\nLets take two people. A gets happiness from doing things for others, from seeing other people be happy. B gets happiness from doing things that come at a detriment or even harm to others.\nThat difference personality is what is called selfish in Bs case. Both are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.\n\nWhat or who decides the things that make a person happy is unknown\n\nThe cause of them becoming who they are is irrelevant, just the fact of who they are matters. This isn't about fault.", ">\n\nThe analogy you’ve used to try to get me to understand what selfish means does not match with the standard Oxfords language’s definition of selfish that I provided in my post. \n\nBoth are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.\n\nIn other words, they are concerned chiefly with one’s own profit or pleasure. In other words, they are both selfish.", ">\n\nIt does though, maybe i worded it unclearly. Pleasure is not the same as happiness.\nGetting happiness from giving others pleasure vs getting happiness from giving yourself pleasure. If you use Oxford's definition, you need to use Oxford's meaning. And if someone gets happy helping others, then they by definition are NOT chiefly concerned with their own pleasure, but with that of others.", ">\n\nI'd say you should judge less by people's intentions than by their actions. If someone does something for a friend that gets them no material gain except for happiness, describing that as a selfish act seems extremely suspect to me. \nYou seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. A defining trait of selflessness, in my opinion, is being happy to make others happy.", ">\n\n\nYou seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. \n\nIt is not wrong. Whether you shared the pleasure or not and whether it gave them more pleasure or not doesn’t matter according to the standard definition of selfish. \nWhat were the other things you were concerned about when you did that action that had nothing to do with your own personal pleasure? Was your own personal pleasure at least 51% of what you were concerned about? \nIf you were to answer the first question I’m sure everything you say would have to do with your own personal pleasure. And if you answered yes to the second question, it was a selfish act.", ">\n\nOf course it matters on the standard definition of selfish. If I give up 5 pleasure units so my friends can get 10 units, it's still selfless even if I still get 3 pleasure units.", ">\n\nI had another comment challenging the first part of the view -- but I'd like to challenge the 2nd part separately.\n\nAll humans are equally selfish\n\nOne way to measure how selfish a person is would be to look at how far they are willing to go to obtain their own happiness. One way to measure this is by how much unhappiness or pain/suffering they are willing to cause others for self happiness. \nThere are many things I could do that would make me happy but those things would cause others sadness, harm, or suffering so I choose to not do those things. A different person may care so much about their own happiness that they are more willing to cause sadness, harm/suffering to others to achieve their own happiness.\nThis shows that not all humans are equally selfish. \nI agree with your point that kind acts can be selfish. However, that doesn't mean all humans are equally selfish. Some humans are more selfish than others.", ">\n\n\nI recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked.\n\nCould you expand on this a little? What do you mean by ‘adopted’ - how have your behaviours changed? In what ways has this disadvantaged you?", ">\n\nYes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”. \nHow have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me? \nI have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me", ">\n\nIt seems like you would say that it’s your experience that this has been a bad way to organise your behaviour. Right? You’re getting sub optimal outcomes. \nWhy do you think everyone else would act this way, in this case? Do you think the whole world is organised so that we act to our own detriment? You don’t think any of us would adjust our behaviour if that was the case?", ">\n\nIt sounds like you've already identified the problem with this view. You've taken a concept that already has a common usage understanding and redefined it in a way that robs it is any practicality. Everyone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.", ">\n\n\nEveryone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.\n\nBut I haven’t done that. I’ve just used the standard definition of the word.", ">\n\nSelfish in common usage implies a willingness to act dishonestly or harm others for personal gain. It's not just having positive regard for your own well-being and acting on it in general.", ">\n\nWhy would I use the word “selfish” in the “common usage” rather than the definition? Who truly knows what a word implies in the common usage? Why do you think you know the “common usage”? \nThis is a terrible point. You’re saying that the definition of the word isn’t the appropriate definition to use.", ">\n\nCommon usage is something you absorb just by existing in the world and interacting with people. Most words you know you never had to explicitly look up the meaning. A good definition is one that accurately captures how people actually use a word.", ">\n\nBut here's the real question - what the hell is \"happiness\"? I would argue that your point is invalid purely based off this, since happiness is essentially a byproduct and a concept we attribute to certain feelings in a certain context. If you ask anyone to describe happiness they will describe how they feel when they are \"happy\". What they should really be saying is they feel endorphins, oxytocin and dopamine which create a feeling of fulfillment and this can lead to a moment of joy or elation. Is that moment happiness? Or is happiness the absence of sadness? Which is a question in itself", ">\n\nWhen I pet a puppy am I not chiefly concerned with both my happiness and the puppy's happiness? In other words, even when I do things that make me happy, can't I also do them because they make someone else happy? Can't I choose which action to take based upon maximizing both my happiness and someone else's? \nIf so, then I am not \"chiefly concerned with [my] own profit,\" but concerned for my profit and someone else's at the same time.", ">\n\nSo if someone presses a loaded gun to my head and tells me to perform a sex act on them or else they’ll blow my head off, I would perform the sex act because it makes me happy to do so? \nThere are other motivators besides happiness. Survival is a huge one for humans. And sometimes surviving means you’ve nothing to look forward to than to keep surviving.", ">\n\n\nThe only human motive is happiness\n\nWhen I go to the eye doctor, I know that by not flinching, I will have a faster more streamlined eye exam. I flinch a lot regardless of this knowledge. Human instinct can sometimes run counter to what will make us most happy.", ">\n\nYea what you do usually won’t be the thing that will actually bring you the most happiness. Yea, it may put me in the happiest position to do whatever I need to in order to make a ton of money and be fit and get all of the things we value as humans etc. But that doesn’t mean we do what will actually make us happy.", ">\n\nI do get your point and tend to agree, but you could avoid a lot of responses below by not using the word \"selfish\" but instead something along the lines of: \"Humans aren't capable of conscious decisions which don't benefit themselves in some way\". \nWe use the word selfish to describe a personality trait, usually understood as a lack of consideration for others. Which is definitely a spectrum and not equal among all humans. \nWhat I do think is universal, which is also the point you're trying to get across, is that every single human action is rooted in some level of self-interest. To either gain happiness or avoid suffering.", ">\n\nI think you’re right about me being able to avoid a lot of the responses below by wording the view differently. I’m not sure what I can do now that it’s posted except for further explain my point. \nThank you for understanding the point im attempting to get across.", ">\n\nWe have not evolved based on happiness. We have evolved to survive and pass on our genes. Happiness is a reward we sometimes get for doing things that promote one of these two activities but people will stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they perceive that their survival will be threatened if they leave.", ">\n\nDo you believe in free will? It would be hard to believe this and free will at the same time.", ">\n\nNot really. Since the things that determine what brings us happiness is unknown and can’t be changed, we don’t really have free will.", ">\n\nWhat about people with mood disorders which prevent them from enjoying anything?", ">\n\nThey may not actually experience the happiness, but the motive is the same.", ">\n\nHow is it the same if they cannot meet the definition of happiness that you're using? People who have affective disorders have interferences with the hormones which feed the \"happiness\" emotion. As such they're not capable of acting in a way that benefits them. It tends to make their worldview more dire and shapes/alters their motivations. Oftentimes the lack the ability to act in any way that encourages their own personal gains.\nThe missing thread here that's jumbled up is that you're too limited on your \"selfish\" definition. By and large people don't act completely independent of others unless they're diagnosed as a sociopath. In reality, humans are naturally social creatures which means they act in the benefit of people of their concern. Families are often times the most likely to benefit from this.\nPeople with mood or social disorders (autism spectrum) often times wind up outside of these circles of interest for other people. This leads to isolation and further dismissal of their problems.\nIf your worldview was true there wouldn't be cliques, political divide, or activists group. You've taken a concept of self interest and extrapolated it out past a functional definition. Yes people are out for their own self interests, but oxytocin specifically is a defining social hormone that gives reciprocity with other people creating strong social bonds.\nYes, it's a chemical feedback system which results in good feelings, but those are in the interests of helping others only for the reasons that it feels good to help others. Therefore it's not intrinsically selfish as you assert here.\nThe proof of this is in the people that either lack that function (sociopaths) or people in which that social feedback system is stunted (depressive or autism disorders) lack social fulfillment and it impacts their lives for the worst.", ">\n\nIt may just be syntax, but I think the subtlety of words can be important.\nI’d posit that contentedness is indeed a universal driver, but happiness may not mean exactly the same thing… pleasure-seeking can be detrimental sometimes - I smoke and drink too much, because it makes me feel happy. It also makes me feel guilty and worried about my health, decreasing happiness when I wake up at 3am and can’t sleep for worry I’ll die before old age. \nSeeking contentment, a solid roof over my head and the means to provide for myself, good conversations with loved ones - having loved ones in general - watching fireworks and giving a kind word to a coworker who I don’t particularly care for, but is going through a rough time… all of those things do indeed make me feel “good”, content, and sometimes happy. Happy isn’t a state you can maintain consistently at all times, content CAN be… if you have some luck and the means. So I think they’re different. \nIt may be a very good thing that humans seek pleasure - food tastes good for a reason. We need to crave fats and protein or we wouldn’t be here. Get a dopamine drip when we eat a beautiful meal. \nLooking at a pretty painting can give us that reward drip too. A song you love, etc. \nSo you could say humans are addicted to happiness. We actively seek it, probably for very sound biological reasons - and yet, as with any addiction, some of us can take it too far…\nYou are right that making a sacrifice can be for pleasure. Martyrdom - for instance, the one coworker who never takes a lunch break, and loves to loudly remind everyone with a “poor me, but no no I’m fine, I guess I just care about the work more than anyone else!” They are certainly getting “satisfaction” from feeling superior, even if they have an unhealthy relationship to happiness. \nWe are animals, after all, and I doubt you would fault a cat for self-serving behavior. \nSelf-serving isn’t the same as selfish. Self-preservation isn’t selfish. Self-centered is often used in the same way as, but technically, isn’t “selfish”. \nAnd self-absorbed isn’t even always such a bad thing, tho it sure can be. \nSelfish is more like greedy. A need to take as much as possible, regardless of whether it hurts others. \nYes, I want to live and live fairly well, I’d also really like to be able to do that without hurting anyone, and then the next goal is to help others. All of those goals will make me content, and sometimes happy. That’s a very good thing! Am I truly selfish in those goals? \nI’m trying to leave morals out of this as much as possible and just think more about biological aspects, but, even tho we are animals, we are a unique breed, in that we can consider morals. Unlike my cat, who wants to kill that bunny that’s wandering my field. Not for desperate need for food, but for happiness. No moral quandary there for him. Lucky guy.\nYou sound existential in a sad way. I’m sorry you feel that way. I suppose you could say that taking a moment to talk to you about this, and share my perspective, is me trying to make myself happy. That I will feel smug or smart or… or something, maybe even just being kind, that makes me happy. \nI guess maybe caring that you sound sad kinda makes me feel validation that I’m a caring person. But more than anything, I kinda just would like you to feel more positive about people and their intentions. It might make you… happy!\nEat that cheeseburger and watch that great movie! Denying yourself any pleasures because you’re focusing on how selfish it is to enjoy life is self-torture. \nCouldn’t that be sorta the same thing you’re talking about? Might it make you feel “good” to deny yourself? Is it possibly hypocritical and martyrdom? Just like my coworker.\nBut also try to be altruistic and kind - happiness can be so very good. It’s a feedback loop that puts more happy in a sometimes cruel world. \nWe don’t know why we are here, but while we have a seat at this table, we should accept the cup of goodness life has to offer. And be grateful for it.", ">\n\nAll of the things you named are good examples of people doing things that don’t seem to give them pleasure, for pleasure. I realize now that “happiness” is extremely vague and it’s pretty much circular. It’s a synonym for a lot of words.", ">\n\nAh - what I was trying to say is that there are different “flavors”, different intent and meaning behind the actions of people in the the words I used. That they aren’t synonyms, exactly. Each term I used was meant to convey a slight slant on a slightly different intention and observed behavior.\nBut words fail, and I may not have explained my feelings well.", ">\n\nI mean, - ignoring the question of whether you're right or now - that is not covered by the meaning of the word \"selfish\".\nWhat you're describing is the concept of motivation - we do something because we believe that it is something that we should do, in some way or another. That is inherent to all actions.\nThe point is that, under that assumption, it makes no sense to define \"selfish\" in such a way. I would even argue that \"selfish\" always excludes one's own gratification - if you do something for fun but do not harm or hinder anyone else, few people would call it \"selfish\". The idea of something being \"selfish\" is always directed outwardly. It talks about influences and results outside of one's own psyche, as that is the only thing reasonably affecting others.", ">\n\nDoes a person care for others because it makes him happy, or does it make him happy because he cares about others? \nYou’re framing happiness as the origin motive here, but it may be that happiness is the byproduct of caring for someone.", ">\n\nIt’s interchangeable. That doesn’t combat my view.", ">\n\nMax Stirner / Johann Kaspar Schmidt's entire ethical philosophy revolves around this. But at the end of the day, he concludes that even if humans are effectively driven solely by their own desires and what makes them happy, what of it? That doesn't change the fact that human beings are biologically driven towards empathy and sympathy.\nEven if one loves another because it makes them happy, they still love. Even if one helps another because they believe they need to get in a good deed for the day or because it makes them feel better or they were raised to believe that they need to help others, that doesn't change the fact that they're still helping another individual.\nPeople do things for reasons born from themselves, that's a no-brainer. But it also changes absolutely nothing at the end of the day.", ">\n\nI argue that your premise is at odds with itself. If the only human motive is selfishness, why do people do self sacrificing acts?\nWhile yes, I agree with you, our organic brains are hard wired to seek pleasure, and that certain pro social behavior is itself rewarding, it is nonetheless pleasure at the feeling of others pleasure, the very definition of empathy. \nConsider this: a group of men are fighting in a war. One man volunteers to run out and draw away the enemy's fire. He knows this will more than likely kill him. If he is absolutely selfish, why would he do it? Why would he sacrifice all pleasure for the lives of others?\nYes you can boil down that it is perhaps self reinforcing to be seen as heroic, but is that selfish? Is the reward for doing so truly self centered or does it only matter if one believes that OTHERS will find it so? In a vacuum, bravery is foolish, and leads to death, the end of all pleasure. But belief that others will see it as worthy and a good example (independent of one's religious perspective) makes it reinforcing, makes it pleasurable, makes it worth while to the suicidally brave hero. \nConsider the opposite. Antisocial behavior. Theft, murder etc. You have what I want so I take it from you by force. Self indulgence to gluttony, to addiction, to Ultimately self destruction. This too leads one to pleasure and death, but , in the well adjusted/non delusional mind at any rate, brings with it guilt. Self imposed suffering for benefitting from others suffering. The same guilt you feel when you see others in pain knowing you are the cause or indirectly related to it. A truly selfish mind would cause no guilt, would steal and kill as long as it benefited them (think chaotic evil).\nEmpathy and self sacrifice. These things, though rewarding to the self, are examples of delaying or denying one's pleasures and joy for the sake of others. The feelings these bring us encourage us to act so, but they are not evidence of absolute selfishness. These are evidence that we can get along with others. Conversely, guilt at actions and thoughts shows that we do care for others, and that our motives are not entirely self centered. \nNow that I think about it, why am I even writing this to you? For the meaningless pleasure of a delta? To show that I'm right to someone I don't know and will never meet? Or am I doing it because someone I don't know and will never meet asked me for my help to find a logical way out of a moral quandary, one who's tenants and beliefs bring them angst and perhaps some guilt? You, OP, may never even read this comment, so any pleasure in it is mine alone, but that pleasure is not in my own head. It starts, and ends, with the belief that I will change your view on this point and hypothetically feel better. To that, this effort is itself entirely directed towards someone else's benefit. That is not selfish.", ">\n\nYou have an amazing comment here and I did actually read it. \nThe conclusion you came to in regards to why you typed it out is wrong. I don’t know which aspect of it brought you the pleasure, but something did. And that was your main motivation.", ">\n\nThe problem here is is that your engaging in a fallacy called begging the question. In response to people's arguments, you say that they only did that because it brought them pleasure. But that's the idea you're trying to prove. You've taken that conclusion, and made it your assumption, and it's very easy to prove something if you begin with it as an assumption.", ">\n\nOur behavior is to a large extent dictated by our upbringing, our genes, our current physiological state, much more than we'd like to admit.\nCase in point, exercise feels good but I don't get my Ass out of the chair. It doesn't make me happy to procrastinate, I don't think it will, I know exercise will though. Yet I don't do it.\nArguably many, if not most, of our behavior is automatic and reflexive. Ingrained habits. Behavioral schemas running on autopilot. Yet, if you question why person x did behavior y, they'll guickly come up with a justification. Now that justification might be ultimately anchored in hedonism and thus be \"selfish\", but that's not the same as hedonistic motive causing the behavior.\nSocial justification theory is one understanding in the above direction, and explains things such as culture, communication, language, etc.\nYesterday I did the dishes. I often do the dishes. If pressed, I'll say I do it because I enjoy a clean kitchen or to make others happy or to feel good because I did good. But it's an automatic behavior for me. Usually I just do it. Good upbringing perhaps. Or what about those who do split decisions like risking their lives for someone else. Do you think they did the mental calculus of what gives them the most pleasure? Did they even have time to do it? But when asked afterwards, you can be sure they have a good reason for it, although if pressed they'll say they did it without thinking.\nOthers, on the other hand, would stand and watch. Did they think it through or it just wasn't in their \"programming\" to do so?", ">\n\nWhat about someone like Peter Singer? Or Immanuel Kant? Or Mother Theresa? I’ve heard Theresa lived am awful life.", ">\n\nYou're right that we're all equally \"selfish\" but it's not happiness that is what drives us: it's survival. Specifically survival of our genetic material. That means successful reproduction at all cost. Happiness, to the extent that it has any meaning at all, is just one marker of progress toward the purpose of survival. \n\nBeing told that you are no better in motive than anyone else on the planet may be a hard pill to swallow.\n\nOnly if you have mistakenly subscribed to the concept of a moral hierarchy - i.e. that people (usually the person with that belief) are \"better\" than others beyond any context. \n\nI recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it\n\nI don't think you should. It's correct (besides the misidentifying happiness as the incentive). And while it may seem negative, there's a ton of positive implications you can take from it: \n1) Forgiveness - since we're all inherently doing the same thing. Most importantly: forgive yourself for not being an angel. \n2) Responsibility - it's up to you to not let the chaos and darkness inside you get the upper hand since you're not inherently \"better\" than those who failed at that. \n3) Prevent atrocities - by understanding that it's not just \"madness\" or some other kind of dismissal of the bad guys, we understand the risk is that any normal person can do terrible things. Knowing that is key to preventing it. See the Banality of Evil.\n4) Gratitude - to think that we - being pure survival-oriented entities, having clawed our way past a brutal, unforgiving competition over countless other species and wound up creating concepts like forgiveness, justice and countless works of beauty is perhaps the most remarkable occurrence imaginable. \nThat's just off the top of my head. It's not ordered or complete.", ">\n\n∆. As a result of this comment, I see that my view is not as disadvantageous as I thought it was before your comment. I see that this view has positive, as well as negatives. I see that it’s not entirely bad.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AloysiusC (7∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI would probably say that human motive ultimately boils down to emotions (as opposed to rational justification), but not necessarily just happiness. I think happiness is a somewhat specific emotion.\nAs far as selfishness goes, i don't know if I'd say everyone's equally selfish. I think there is such a thing as having concern for another's well being. Sure it might not be true altruism, but there certainly is a difference between having concern for another's well being and withholding empathy or displaying apathy for someone else's suffering.", ">\n\nThe motion you argue. Is loosely constructed because of the complexity over human emotions, motives, and the human mind itself. What your post created is a topic without room to discuss because you hold the opinion high ground as the topic starter. Judging from some responses you aren't to inclined to openly evaluate someone's responses with an unbiased eye. This is less of a cmv and more a, \"This is my opinion, say it isn't so I can say it is.\"\nTake the example, a homeless man offering money to a wealthy man who has no cash for a busfare. \nYour perspective follows: The homeless man gave up his money to feel happy that he helped someone else.\nThe homeless man's perspective: I know what it's like having no money, so I'll spare someone else from having to experience not having money, even if it is a small thing. I'll be broke but it's better to help than sit around and let others suffer. \nAnyone could come in and poke any type of emotional, or logical holes in this example, and that's the point. You can't label the motives of every single human. Fortunately, almost no one is exactly the same as someone else. I can work a job, I don't do it because I'm happy to work, or happy to make money. I do it because the world runs on money and I have 0 options to live other than get a job. The alternative is. Be homeless. Neither option makes me happy. I'd rather be lazy all day if I could, and do what I want. But I can't. Because I have to work so I can pay bills, buy food, go places to have fun, buy games. My hobbies make me happy. My forced existence and forced life of working does not.", ">\n\nI would challenge the view that this view is disadvantageous. Can you say why you think it is?", ">\n\nYes, I’ll copy and paste my reply to another person with an extremely similar question to yours. \n“Yes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”.\nHow have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me?\nI have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me”", ">\n\nFrom the other angle: It's not so much about happiness as it is avoiding guilty feelings. Sometimes we know that any pleasure gained or convenience preserved by not helping others is trivial compared to the amount of anguish allowed to befall that person in most need of help.", ">\n\nI agree.", ">\n\nSome people get happiness out of making others happy. Some people only get happiness from doing things for themselves.\nThe fact that we are all motivated by what makes us happy, does not make us equally selfish, simply because different things make us happy. IE, gift giving vs gift receiving.\nI think to be correct, all humans are motivated by happiness, but we are not equally selfish because different things make different people happy.", ">\n\nUm you know that most of the time people are just trying to be nice? I know that may seem like an alien emotion to you but that's just the case. Are doctors just doing what they do out of their own personal happiness? Some of them are, but most of them just want to help people in need.", ">\n\nOP is misusing both the words ‘selfish’ and ‘happy’\nSelfish in the definition provided necessitates a lack of consideration for others. If I sacrifice myself for my son, that is entirely because of my consideration for him. And it will not make me happy. It will make me dead. I’d do it with fear and anger and pain in my heart. But I’d do it. This is not a selfish act. \nHappy - op is using the word happy to mean basically any reason for any action. It doesn’t make me happy to work, but I do it out of necessity. Is this better than abject poverty? Yes. Does that mean I’m doing it to be happy? No.", ">\n\nOf all the reasons people do what they do, the pursuit of happiness wouldn’t be in the top 5", ">\n\nI don’t think this will change your mind - but what difference does it make for you to assume one’s intents? \nYou shouldn’t assume anything of anyone, you’ll drive yourself nuts and be wrong the majority of the time anyway. \nNo one here, you included - can ever determine if you’re correct. We’d need to survey the consciousness of every living human. Your ‘adopted philosophy’ is just a shot in the dark. Absolutes are rarely useful.", ">\n\nGo have a kid, friend. I promise you will do a bunch of stuff that makes you miserable because you want someone else to be happy.", ">\n\nSome people feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things for others. Some people do not feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things only for themselves. The people in the former category are more selfless than those in the latter category.", ">\n\n\nHumans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest. We don’t have to do anything, so everything that we do is for that reason. \n\nWhat about all the people who hate their job but still go to work every day? You might say spending money makes them happy but what about the people who work so that they can pay their rent and feed their family? It would be pretty cynical to say their just doing what makes them happy. It is more like they are doing it so they do not feel worse.", ">\n\nI am pretty much in support of this typical utilitarian view. If you actually want to get this ideology debunked, I would say the biggest problem is not what it says about any individual, but the application of it.\nSo by saying the application I mean that utilitarianism inevitably entails some sort of tradeoff when one's happiness affects the happiness of others. It entails that as long as the gain by person A is bigger than the loss by person B, then such action is beneficial to society as a whole as the absolute unit of happiness increases. Following this logic, one could argue that sacrificing a few people for the \"greater good\" is justified, and this is against some of the basic ideas of constitutionalism, a fundamental ideology upon which the modern state is built. Say, you cannot kill an innocent person, take his organs and use them to save five people. \nThis is pretty much the problem of the application of utilitarianism, but again, I don't think the view itself is problematic. Hope this can help.", ">\n\nYou need to draw a distinction between happiness and satisfaction. This is analogous to the difference between something being beautiful and something being sublime. \nI could be happy by eating candy all day, but I would not be satisfied. But some things that make me satisfied do not make me happy. Like studying math makes me satisfied, but at the cost of happiness. \nSo happiness becomes problematic if we treat it monolithically. At the least we need to recognize some core distinctions and say that what we are motivated by is a complicated relationship between happiness, satisfaction, and unhappiness and dissatisfaction.", ">\n\nHuman's primary motive is survival\nOnce survival is ensured, then the primary motive shifts to happiness.\nIn the modern world, basic survival is assured for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time (quality of life may vary, but usually basic survival is assured). So, without the need for the survival motivation, most of us have transitioned to the happiness motivation.\nTo your second point, people in (true) communal cultures derive happiness BOTH from their own selfish desires AND from the successes of others. Modern society bastardised the 2nd part and frames the success of others as something to be jealous of - and I don't just mean monetarily, even family success is affected. In other words, thr American Dream is a farce\nWithout the understanding that the success of others isn't something to be jealous of, we dive further into our selfish desires, and it seems as though our selfish desires are the only path to happiness.", ">\n\nYesterday I made myself a ramen noodle and Vienna sausage meal. It caused me great sadness to eat it, because it was disgusting but I am poor and I was hungry. When I was 23 I slept in my car not because it brought me happiness but because it was cold outside and I was tired. Happiness hasn’t been in my motivation pool until recently. Happiness is a great motivator, you know what else motivates people? Hunger.", ">\n\nYes. But. Happy people don’t want to think about it.", ">\n\nThis is some nihilistic, pseudointellectual bullshit. You don't want your view changed, you want to be condescending and seem like some tortured mind crumbling under its own genius. Get over yourself, maybe go outside and see that the world is actually a nice place, despite what you may see on the news and social media.", ">\n\nI honestly wish this was true but its very obvious you've never had to deal with any form of mental illness before.\nWhat I mean to say is, you believe this due to a bias you have. You may actually be more selfish than others(or less). Your post doesn't indicate either. But some of us live a life we hate where nothing we do makes us happy, and I feel like you must have lived a very different life to feel the complete opposite.", ">\n\nAbsolutely not. I'd dolre for my child than myself. Ijs\nThe point of life is happiness and challenge. However you can't enjoy anything without contrast. Losing and loss. If your baselines are raised your expectations also rise. So you'll be in a downward spiral if you think it's just happiness." ]
> Well, I guess you can always argue that by happiness you don't actually mean happiness but some sort of a broad self-serving concept. Cause "happy" is definitely not the word that motivates all actions people do. If you're hungry and in a hurry so you'll make yourself a shitty sandwich so you're a bit less hungry, you're not happy or even happier. You're often not even less miserable, you're just a bit less hungry. But yes, if you bring it to that broad level, you're probably right. Already the way we've evolved means that our brain is wired for some sort of self-preservation, which then causes us to prefer to do things that keeps us alive and safe and reproducing etc. Which brings me to the next example: kids. People who have kids definitely do things that might not make them happy but are good for their kids. This is again not happiness, it might even be the opposite of that on the feeling-level, but they do it so their kids will have a better life. Again, in the broader sense, it's probably rooted to how we're wired to keep the human species going. But I do think there are some exceptions to this. Like certain habits that you do and don't even know why you do them. They might have started from self-preservation or happiness but have progressed to a point where they might no longer serve any purpose. Or let's take it a step further: addiction. A lot of addicts are addicted enough that they don't get any happiness from their addiction. Sure, they get relief from the withdrawals they'd get if they stopped drinking/smoking/doing drugs but it's definitely not happiness. It's just a reaction.	[ "/u/a2ew (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI just pinched myself hard enough to cause pain and leave a mark. I expected no happiness out of this. I experienced no feelings of happiness out of this.\nMy motive was just to prove the easily provable point that humans only motive is not happiness. Just observing humans doing things will also reflect this truth repeatedly.\nYou could argue that self happiness is one of the strongest human motivators, but clearly it isn't the only human motive.", ">\n\nPinching yourself did bring you happiness, although you may not be fully conscious of it. Maybe it brought you happiness because you thought it would be a factor in proving your point, or maybe it brought you happiness because you liked the feeling. How it brought you happiness doesn’t matter. \nYou wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t bring you happiness", ">\n\nYou're wrong. It didn't bring me happiness. I know this because I experienced it personally. You insist it did without any knowledge or evidence only because if it didn't that disproves your point.\nTyping this comment brings me no happiness, yet I'm doing it.", ">\n\nSo let me ask this: if not for your own benefit, why did you make the comment? Why didyou pinch yourself? \nIt's easy to say \"nuh uh\". It's harder to actually really justify your position. Are you saying you don't like being right? You don't enjoy answering reddit cmvs? You don't want to participate in the community? If all that is so, then why are you here? If it's not so, are you not then motivated by a personal desire to enjoy yourself? To find happiness?", ">\n\nLazy copy/paste from another response because I think it fits here also:\n...\nI could have chosen to look at cute animal pictures or watch a funny video. Both of those things would have brought me more happiness than engaging with this thread. So why did I do it? What was my motive? It clearly wasn't seeking happiness.\nI'm not sure what my motive is. But the fact that there is more than one motive to choose from means OP's claim that there is only 1 motive must be incorrect.", ">\n\nPerhaps you chose to reply here because engaging in this discourse makes you a more intelligent and well-rounded person, while watching cat videos most certainly would not? You become happier as a result of further enhancing your skills.", ">\n\nThis gets posted quite a bit and inevitably relies on the fact that the poster has redefined selfishness to define any voluntary action when most english speakers use selfish to describe behavior that priorities oneself unreasonably to the detriment of others.\nYes -- people, when they're making conscious choices, do things for reasons. You might donate to charity because it makes you feel good that you're improving the conditions of those less fortunate than you. You might leap in front of a bus to protect a child because you don't think you could live with being the kind of person who allowed a child to perish. You might rob a bank because you want money and you don't care about the emotional distress and physical risk you'll cause the teller.\nThose are all reasons that the doer found satisfactory (I guess you could say that made them happy, although I think happiness is more complicated than that). but clearly we can make distinctions as to the quality of each justification relative to the impact of the action.", ">\n\nYour first point effectively means nothing other than you recognize the difference. Wouldn't this then make it easier to respond to, not more difficult? Or do you find the question tedious? \nYou didn't actually attempt to prove him wrong as much as you emphatically agreed with him. You listed no examples where someone does things for no reason, only that there are reasons someone would do good things(all personally beneficial).", ">\n\nWell I am curioous why you think it is a negative view or something you want to get rid of. I don't understand the negative implications of it. \nHow is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?\nAnd what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?", ">\n\nIt’s a negative view because I find myself using it to justify people’s actions that aren’t just. It’s also oversimplifies humans and the reasoning as to why we do the things we do. I would like to believe that humans are complex than this. \n\nHow is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?\n\nThat in itself is not bad. I’m saying that having the ideology is disadvantageous to me and that is why I want to change it. \n\nAnd what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?\n\nI don’t think there is any alternative.", ">\n\nEverything is super simple if you reduce them down far enough. Humans are complex, but if you boil every possible motivation to do something as “happiness” then they stop being as complex. Then when you discard any morality around WHY they’re “happy” and call all happiness seeking as equally “selfish,” then they’re even simpler. \nNobody has ever used “selfless” to refer to a person who does something that they have absolutely no reason to do, and hate doing. Most people would consider somebody who does things that only makes them miserable mentally ill. And yet the words selfish and selfless continue to exist.\nWhy? Because when people use those terms they’re talking about the reasons behind a person’s happiness. Somebody who is made happy by helping other people is considered selfless, while somebody who is only made happy by hoarding wealth or power is considered selfish. \nThe myriad of reasons we feel what we feel are what makes humans complex. The end result of actually feeling the emotions is just a biochemical response and can seem simple if you remove all other context.", ">\n\nSometimes people sacrifice their lives, for other people's happiness, survival or various other motives.\nThis means they no longer get to experience happiness, at least earthly happiness.", ">\n\nWell they sacrifice their lives because it benefits them to save others.\nFor example, in some religions kids are taught that if they die in a heroic way, or if they die for their God, they will go to heaven. This is why they find happiness in sacrificing their life. But the motivation was still their own happiness.", ">\n\nAtheists sacrifice their lives for others too. People voluntarily spend their final moments in pain while fully expecting no happiness to come of it.", ">\n\nI understand that atheist do it too. That was only an example. I agree with your first sentence. I only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.", ">\n\n\nI only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.\n\nBut how? You agreed that some people sacrifice their lives, and the only advantage was that maybe there's some religious reward. So take away the religious award, and presume that the person didn't sacrifice themselves as a suicide measure, and what \"selfish happiness\" is left?", ">\n\nLike most circular disprovable hypothesis this is also probably false. It is intellectually identical to something like \"god\". \nBeyond that trap, you can certainly point to depressed people who relieve misery of the deepest level bit only to make things tolerable. They find no happiness, and don't think it even a possibility. If you don't believe happiness can exist for you generally or experiential then it can't motivate you.\nOr...you can look at it as a consequence not a motivator. I would stop a bullet from hitting my child even if it made me sad. It just happens that it wouldn't. It is not the motivator, just a consequence of following and achieving you more root motivation.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is not selfish to pursue happiness; it is selfish to pursue happiness at the expense of other people’s.", ">\n\nThe only issue I can see with this is that your definition of selfish mentions \"lacking consideration for others,\" and people are capable of considering and acting for others in a way that is irrelevant to your own needs. You could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire, but I think it's an area to consider.", ">\n\n\nYou could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire\n\nI agree with that argument.", ">\n\nI understand the reasoning for this view. It simplifies people and creates a baseline for every act a person could commit. If only happiness was the root cause for everything people do. If it were, I think we'd be able to understand each other. \nAt the very least, psychologists would stop tearing their hair out trying to quantify motivation. \nThere's a LOT that goes into it. There's roughly four approaches, I think? Behaviorist, Humanistic, The hierarchy of needs, and Cognitive. But Im not sure any of them would simplify all human motivation as a pursuit of happiness. \nWhy? Mainly, what is happiness? Think seriously: How do you define the state of being happy? What does that mean? I know, not something you usually think about in an internet thread. \nSo according to the oxford dictionary: The state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one's circumstances.\nCool. What's pleasure? \nPleasure: a state of feeling or being happy or satisfied\nWow, that was circular af, thanks oxford. Fine, what chemicals make happiness?\nScience says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.\nSo I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?", ">\n\nThis was extremely insightful. \n\nScience says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.\n\nSo I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?\nYes, if we think that it will bring us pleasure.", ">\n\nLet's say We know it will. It is a fact. So let's say this magical brain jar is offered to you. Science can put your brain in serotonin, dopamine, endorphin mix. \nDo you accept?", ">\n\nNo I don’t only because I don’t actually think it will make me happier. Science says it will, but it sounds terrible. It sounds like hell in my opinion.", ">\n\nWhy? I am telling you that in this scenario, you will be happy all the time if you do this.", ">\n\nToo absolute.", ">\n\nI'm not sure this position is actually that meaningful.\nThere's still a difference between a person who is happy to make others suffer and a person who is happy to make others happy. And we should try to train ourselves - and our children - to be happy at the happiness of others, and sad at the sadness of others. \nAll your position does is change virtue from \"helps people even if it makes them sad\" to \"has learned to be happy when helping others\", which is not, in practice, all that different. I think it sounds different to a kind of person who really doesn't value feelings very much, but the whole point of kindness, of goodness to other people, was feelings in the first place. If anything, an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and +1 unit to me is better than an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and -1 unit to me.", ">\n\nAll of this seems to be true, but it doesn’t disprove or change my view. It was insightful though.", ">\n\n\nHumans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest.\n\nI'll pick apart the word \"only\" in that statement. Humans are social animals, and we're perfectly capable of doing things that benefit the group at the expense of ourselves. In evolutionary biology, altruism is behavior that increases the fitness of others at the expense of your own fitness. Like when someone sacrifices themselves to rescue others, they are trading away all future profits and pleasures for the benefit of others. That simply doesn't add up from a personal utility perspective. Indeed, if everyone always selfishly pursued their own immediate interests at the expense of group survival, we would have died out as a species; living together and sharing resources meant making compromises on our personal freedom and happiness.", ">\n\nI have £5 in my wallet, I'm heading to the bar to buy a pint which will make me happy.\nInstead I give the £5 to charity and head home.\nThe act of giving money made me feel some satisfaction but that's because I was concerned about others. It also cost me the happiness of having a pint, so overall my happiness may be lower then not giving the money.", ">\n\nDevil's advocate: \nWhatever choice would have brought you more happiness is hypothetical. However, the decision you made on the spot is what matters. If it was possible to thoroughly analyze all factors that went through your head at the time, your donation was still out of self-interest and at the time outweighed the negatives. \nFor example, even if you didn't \"gain\" happiness, you avoided suffering from guilt/shame etc.", ">\n\nIf my expected opportunity cost of happiness was higher than the happiness generated though then I haven't acted to maximize my happiness, and I feel no guilt or shame for having a pint instead of giving money to charity. so that argument doesn't hold up.", ">\n\nThe problem is that you assume it didn't maximize your happiness. The decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it. In retrospect we can evaluate that it was the \"wrong decision\", sure, but not based on the information you had at the time.\nWe're speaking hypotheticals so neither if us can prove our position nor do I know how much you like beer or charities (guilt was just an example). Personally, I can't think of a single conscious decision human beings could make that's truly selfless.", ">\n\n\nThe decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it.\n\nI'm saying the opposite, humans can and do things that they don't believe will maximise their happiness. All of these actions are therefore selfless.", ">\n\nThe usual problem here is with what does it mean to be selfish. \nBecause being concerned chiefly with your own personal profit and pleasure as defined in your \"every action is ultimately concerned with ones own search for pleasure\" is not necessarily the same as \"lacking consideration for others\".\nLike there's a difference between long and short term selfishness. Like a shortsighted act of selfishness might be to steal something because you want it. You have it now someone else doesn't, clear win-lose situation. But you could also cooperate with others form friendships and relationships that make you both better off because of it. You could still argue that \"... but ultimately it makes you happy\", but that's fundamentally a different set of actions than the short sighted version of selfishness. The letter kind of selfishness might even lead you to perform acts that would, out of context, be described as altruism. So are you still talking about the same thing and would the long term selfishness still fit the \"lacking considerations for others\" part? Because maybe you draw happiness from the happiness of other people so your happiness relies chiefly on their happiness.", ">\n\nYour argument is reductionary. All cars have tires. So all cars are tires? It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. \nEven altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego. A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. \nThis is more so a lense that speaks about you the observer than it does the subject. \nLogic is a good tool but a bad master. You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you. Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience. Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊", ">\n\nThank you \n\nYour argument is reductionary. All cars have tires. So all cars are tires? It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. \n\nWell it’s more like me saying that all cars are at least 51% (or majority) tires. Now imagine the definition of “tires” is “majority of tires” (similar to how the definition of selfish is concerned chiefly with your own personal pleasure). That means that all cars are tires. \n\nEven altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego. A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. \n\nThis is similar to what my point is. \n\nLogic is a good tool but a bad master. You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you. Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience. Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊\n\nI think that being disproved is what I need to get rid of this ideology and that’s why I posted this. You have a great day as well.", ">\n\nHow exactly do you expect someone to change your view? Because it seems that anything someone argues does not bring happiness, you would argue it does. If I have a piece of information that would hurt someone else and I withhold that information to spare their wellbeing, even if they told me they didn't want to know, is that still selfish? Have I brought myself happiness even if the information is painful and I think they should know but telling them would unwillingly hurt them?", ">\n\n\nI want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked. \n\nTell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this? \nWalk by a homeless man and you give him money, it can be used as evidence for this being true. Don't give him money and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Kick him and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you happy and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you sad and it can be used as evidence for this being true. \nNo matter what you do in any situation, it can be twisted into being evidence as this being true. There's no actual substance to this idea because it's completely impossible to disprove and it has no predictive power.", ">\n\nI would like to believe that this can be disproved because I admitted it is not beneficial to have it. I also admit that I don’t see that it can be logically disproved, but I have hope. You may be right. \n\nTell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this?\n\nI don’t have an answer to this question.", ">\n\nYou're missing my point. Imagine a scientific theory like this \"all objects go the direction they want to go\" and then any time I saw an object go any direction I said \"Look it's poof of my theory!\". You could never disprove this, but at the same time you wouldn't have to. It's unfalsifiable and untestable. It makes no predictions. It's a completely meaningless theory. Yours is the same.\nIt relies on a twisted definition of selfish. Is the person who gives $5 to charity really equally selfish as the one who steals $5 from charity?", ">\n\nEvery situation can be trivially reduced, this does not mean it is reasonable to do so. Some will say that, because we can imagine a selfish interpretation for every interaction, that all interactions must therefor be selfish. That is, that altruism does not exist because we have decided all interactions are zero-sum. \nBut all interactions are not zero-sum, and just saying it's so doesn't make it so. \nIf you are starving, and I give you my cookie, I'm not suddenly as asshole if I feel good about it. I did a good thing and I feel good about that. That's a win win, a scenario where both parties benefit. \nIf someone then comes and says, \"But, Loaf, you only gave him a cookie so you would feel good!\" they have now said that either I am lying, or I am delusional. Either everyone in the world is pretending that goodness is a thing so that we can trick each other, or everyone who thinks goodness is a thing is actually crazy.\nWhen modeling human interactions, it's not really helpful to reduce them so far that we conclude that most people are deluded. At that point, we aren't really talking about human interactions. We are talking about \"well, genetic expressions prompt you to do this and that, and hormones are making you do XYZ.\" Again, now we have reduced things past the point of usefulness. There's merit in discussing the role of smaller elements to the emergent properties they together create, but that's not the only place we find merit. \nConsider the validity of saying, \"A sandwich is just atoms,\" or \"A painting is just pixels.\" \nSo to when we say \"A good action isn't good if you are motivated by feeling good.\" It's not useful, and we are distracted by its triviality. \nReject the zero-sum approach. You can do something for the sake of another person, and you can simultaneously feel good about doing that.", ">\n\n\nSelfish: of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. \n\nEmphasis on the bold bit. That doesn't apply to your argument. Eg:\n\nThe only reason that one helps others is for his own personal benefit: his happiness\n\nWe don't help others necessarily because we want to be happy. We often get happiness from doing so, but for it to qualify as selfishness by your definition, that happiness needs to be the main objective. That is not the case.", ">\n\nI've meet along people in the medical who would love to quit because they don't enjoy but stay because they feel it would be wrong not to use their experience and education to continue to help despite they hate actually having to do it.If you place other people's positive experience above your own how can you be pursuing happiness.Sure you could say it's out of guilt but reducing guilt is More a middle ground position then a positive development.", ">\n\n\nlacking consideration for others\n\nEven if my happiness is my ultimate goal, if that happiness is derived from consideration for others, then it is not selfish. Self-interested, sure, but not selfish.", ">\n\nThis is a hard argument to debunk because “happiness” can mean basically anything. Are you referring to pleasure? Satisfaction?, fulfillment? \nI can buy a new today and it will make me feel “happy” for a bit.\nI can save the money and feel “happy” about that. \nSee what I mean?", ">\n\nThis claim is an unfalsifiable self-fulfilling prophecy, and thus it is impossible to change your view. You've basically defined happiness as \"any reason why anyone does anything.\" A person fighting a murderer to save a child is by your definition \"selfish\" because they either find gratification from doing the right thing or would otherwise feel guilty for having done nothing.\nAny example a commenter could possibly give will fall prey to your circular reasoning. You'd simply reject any altruistic motive and claim that all motives are fundamentally based on \"happiness,\" even though you haven't defined what \"happiness\" even is.\nIf we really boil your view down it's really just an argument that free will doesn't exist.", ">\n\nThe human capacity for empathy allows us to make other people well being part of our own well being. You can deconstruct the mechanics of altruism but that doesn’t change what it is. Of course there is an internal mechanism. Sure you end up at self interest but that self interest is one that has the capacity to incorporate others into it. If we never evolved empathy what “self-interest” looks like we be very different.\nSo you can say it’s all self-interest but you have to ask what each self interest is. Someone who finds fulfillment taking care of babies cares more for others than someone who finds fulfillment eating them.\nA related point is that frameworks that center around judging individuals moral character often don’t make much sense and judging outcomes is much more sensible when it comes to actually defining a definition of ethics, even if in application judgements are implemented.", ">\n\nYou're 100% right", ">\n\nYou are mistaken about what selfish means.\nLets take two people. A gets happiness from doing things for others, from seeing other people be happy. B gets happiness from doing things that come at a detriment or even harm to others.\nThat difference personality is what is called selfish in Bs case. Both are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.\n\nWhat or who decides the things that make a person happy is unknown\n\nThe cause of them becoming who they are is irrelevant, just the fact of who they are matters. This isn't about fault.", ">\n\nThe analogy you’ve used to try to get me to understand what selfish means does not match with the standard Oxfords language’s definition of selfish that I provided in my post. \n\nBoth are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.\n\nIn other words, they are concerned chiefly with one’s own profit or pleasure. In other words, they are both selfish.", ">\n\nIt does though, maybe i worded it unclearly. Pleasure is not the same as happiness.\nGetting happiness from giving others pleasure vs getting happiness from giving yourself pleasure. If you use Oxford's definition, you need to use Oxford's meaning. And if someone gets happy helping others, then they by definition are NOT chiefly concerned with their own pleasure, but with that of others.", ">\n\nI'd say you should judge less by people's intentions than by their actions. If someone does something for a friend that gets them no material gain except for happiness, describing that as a selfish act seems extremely suspect to me. \nYou seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. A defining trait of selflessness, in my opinion, is being happy to make others happy.", ">\n\n\nYou seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. \n\nIt is not wrong. Whether you shared the pleasure or not and whether it gave them more pleasure or not doesn’t matter according to the standard definition of selfish. \nWhat were the other things you were concerned about when you did that action that had nothing to do with your own personal pleasure? Was your own personal pleasure at least 51% of what you were concerned about? \nIf you were to answer the first question I’m sure everything you say would have to do with your own personal pleasure. And if you answered yes to the second question, it was a selfish act.", ">\n\nOf course it matters on the standard definition of selfish. If I give up 5 pleasure units so my friends can get 10 units, it's still selfless even if I still get 3 pleasure units.", ">\n\nI had another comment challenging the first part of the view -- but I'd like to challenge the 2nd part separately.\n\nAll humans are equally selfish\n\nOne way to measure how selfish a person is would be to look at how far they are willing to go to obtain their own happiness. One way to measure this is by how much unhappiness or pain/suffering they are willing to cause others for self happiness. \nThere are many things I could do that would make me happy but those things would cause others sadness, harm, or suffering so I choose to not do those things. A different person may care so much about their own happiness that they are more willing to cause sadness, harm/suffering to others to achieve their own happiness.\nThis shows that not all humans are equally selfish. \nI agree with your point that kind acts can be selfish. However, that doesn't mean all humans are equally selfish. Some humans are more selfish than others.", ">\n\n\nI recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked.\n\nCould you expand on this a little? What do you mean by ‘adopted’ - how have your behaviours changed? In what ways has this disadvantaged you?", ">\n\nYes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”. \nHow have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me? \nI have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me", ">\n\nIt seems like you would say that it’s your experience that this has been a bad way to organise your behaviour. Right? You’re getting sub optimal outcomes. \nWhy do you think everyone else would act this way, in this case? Do you think the whole world is organised so that we act to our own detriment? You don’t think any of us would adjust our behaviour if that was the case?", ">\n\nIt sounds like you've already identified the problem with this view. You've taken a concept that already has a common usage understanding and redefined it in a way that robs it is any practicality. Everyone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.", ">\n\n\nEveryone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.\n\nBut I haven’t done that. I’ve just used the standard definition of the word.", ">\n\nSelfish in common usage implies a willingness to act dishonestly or harm others for personal gain. It's not just having positive regard for your own well-being and acting on it in general.", ">\n\nWhy would I use the word “selfish” in the “common usage” rather than the definition? Who truly knows what a word implies in the common usage? Why do you think you know the “common usage”? \nThis is a terrible point. You’re saying that the definition of the word isn’t the appropriate definition to use.", ">\n\nCommon usage is something you absorb just by existing in the world and interacting with people. Most words you know you never had to explicitly look up the meaning. A good definition is one that accurately captures how people actually use a word.", ">\n\nBut here's the real question - what the hell is \"happiness\"? I would argue that your point is invalid purely based off this, since happiness is essentially a byproduct and a concept we attribute to certain feelings in a certain context. If you ask anyone to describe happiness they will describe how they feel when they are \"happy\". What they should really be saying is they feel endorphins, oxytocin and dopamine which create a feeling of fulfillment and this can lead to a moment of joy or elation. Is that moment happiness? Or is happiness the absence of sadness? Which is a question in itself", ">\n\nWhen I pet a puppy am I not chiefly concerned with both my happiness and the puppy's happiness? In other words, even when I do things that make me happy, can't I also do them because they make someone else happy? Can't I choose which action to take based upon maximizing both my happiness and someone else's? \nIf so, then I am not \"chiefly concerned with [my] own profit,\" but concerned for my profit and someone else's at the same time.", ">\n\nSo if someone presses a loaded gun to my head and tells me to perform a sex act on them or else they’ll blow my head off, I would perform the sex act because it makes me happy to do so? \nThere are other motivators besides happiness. Survival is a huge one for humans. And sometimes surviving means you’ve nothing to look forward to than to keep surviving.", ">\n\n\nThe only human motive is happiness\n\nWhen I go to the eye doctor, I know that by not flinching, I will have a faster more streamlined eye exam. I flinch a lot regardless of this knowledge. Human instinct can sometimes run counter to what will make us most happy.", ">\n\nYea what you do usually won’t be the thing that will actually bring you the most happiness. Yea, it may put me in the happiest position to do whatever I need to in order to make a ton of money and be fit and get all of the things we value as humans etc. But that doesn’t mean we do what will actually make us happy.", ">\n\nI do get your point and tend to agree, but you could avoid a lot of responses below by not using the word \"selfish\" but instead something along the lines of: \"Humans aren't capable of conscious decisions which don't benefit themselves in some way\". \nWe use the word selfish to describe a personality trait, usually understood as a lack of consideration for others. Which is definitely a spectrum and not equal among all humans. \nWhat I do think is universal, which is also the point you're trying to get across, is that every single human action is rooted in some level of self-interest. To either gain happiness or avoid suffering.", ">\n\nI think you’re right about me being able to avoid a lot of the responses below by wording the view differently. I’m not sure what I can do now that it’s posted except for further explain my point. \nThank you for understanding the point im attempting to get across.", ">\n\nWe have not evolved based on happiness. We have evolved to survive and pass on our genes. Happiness is a reward we sometimes get for doing things that promote one of these two activities but people will stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they perceive that their survival will be threatened if they leave.", ">\n\nDo you believe in free will? It would be hard to believe this and free will at the same time.", ">\n\nNot really. Since the things that determine what brings us happiness is unknown and can’t be changed, we don’t really have free will.", ">\n\nWhat about people with mood disorders which prevent them from enjoying anything?", ">\n\nThey may not actually experience the happiness, but the motive is the same.", ">\n\nHow is it the same if they cannot meet the definition of happiness that you're using? People who have affective disorders have interferences with the hormones which feed the \"happiness\" emotion. As such they're not capable of acting in a way that benefits them. It tends to make their worldview more dire and shapes/alters their motivations. Oftentimes the lack the ability to act in any way that encourages their own personal gains.\nThe missing thread here that's jumbled up is that you're too limited on your \"selfish\" definition. By and large people don't act completely independent of others unless they're diagnosed as a sociopath. In reality, humans are naturally social creatures which means they act in the benefit of people of their concern. Families are often times the most likely to benefit from this.\nPeople with mood or social disorders (autism spectrum) often times wind up outside of these circles of interest for other people. This leads to isolation and further dismissal of their problems.\nIf your worldview was true there wouldn't be cliques, political divide, or activists group. You've taken a concept of self interest and extrapolated it out past a functional definition. Yes people are out for their own self interests, but oxytocin specifically is a defining social hormone that gives reciprocity with other people creating strong social bonds.\nYes, it's a chemical feedback system which results in good feelings, but those are in the interests of helping others only for the reasons that it feels good to help others. Therefore it's not intrinsically selfish as you assert here.\nThe proof of this is in the people that either lack that function (sociopaths) or people in which that social feedback system is stunted (depressive or autism disorders) lack social fulfillment and it impacts their lives for the worst.", ">\n\nIt may just be syntax, but I think the subtlety of words can be important.\nI’d posit that contentedness is indeed a universal driver, but happiness may not mean exactly the same thing… pleasure-seeking can be detrimental sometimes - I smoke and drink too much, because it makes me feel happy. It also makes me feel guilty and worried about my health, decreasing happiness when I wake up at 3am and can’t sleep for worry I’ll die before old age. \nSeeking contentment, a solid roof over my head and the means to provide for myself, good conversations with loved ones - having loved ones in general - watching fireworks and giving a kind word to a coworker who I don’t particularly care for, but is going through a rough time… all of those things do indeed make me feel “good”, content, and sometimes happy. Happy isn’t a state you can maintain consistently at all times, content CAN be… if you have some luck and the means. So I think they’re different. \nIt may be a very good thing that humans seek pleasure - food tastes good for a reason. We need to crave fats and protein or we wouldn’t be here. Get a dopamine drip when we eat a beautiful meal. \nLooking at a pretty painting can give us that reward drip too. A song you love, etc. \nSo you could say humans are addicted to happiness. We actively seek it, probably for very sound biological reasons - and yet, as with any addiction, some of us can take it too far…\nYou are right that making a sacrifice can be for pleasure. Martyrdom - for instance, the one coworker who never takes a lunch break, and loves to loudly remind everyone with a “poor me, but no no I’m fine, I guess I just care about the work more than anyone else!” They are certainly getting “satisfaction” from feeling superior, even if they have an unhealthy relationship to happiness. \nWe are animals, after all, and I doubt you would fault a cat for self-serving behavior. \nSelf-serving isn’t the same as selfish. Self-preservation isn’t selfish. Self-centered is often used in the same way as, but technically, isn’t “selfish”. \nAnd self-absorbed isn’t even always such a bad thing, tho it sure can be. \nSelfish is more like greedy. A need to take as much as possible, regardless of whether it hurts others. \nYes, I want to live and live fairly well, I’d also really like to be able to do that without hurting anyone, and then the next goal is to help others. All of those goals will make me content, and sometimes happy. That’s a very good thing! Am I truly selfish in those goals? \nI’m trying to leave morals out of this as much as possible and just think more about biological aspects, but, even tho we are animals, we are a unique breed, in that we can consider morals. Unlike my cat, who wants to kill that bunny that’s wandering my field. Not for desperate need for food, but for happiness. No moral quandary there for him. Lucky guy.\nYou sound existential in a sad way. I’m sorry you feel that way. I suppose you could say that taking a moment to talk to you about this, and share my perspective, is me trying to make myself happy. That I will feel smug or smart or… or something, maybe even just being kind, that makes me happy. \nI guess maybe caring that you sound sad kinda makes me feel validation that I’m a caring person. But more than anything, I kinda just would like you to feel more positive about people and their intentions. It might make you… happy!\nEat that cheeseburger and watch that great movie! Denying yourself any pleasures because you’re focusing on how selfish it is to enjoy life is self-torture. \nCouldn’t that be sorta the same thing you’re talking about? Might it make you feel “good” to deny yourself? Is it possibly hypocritical and martyrdom? Just like my coworker.\nBut also try to be altruistic and kind - happiness can be so very good. It’s a feedback loop that puts more happy in a sometimes cruel world. \nWe don’t know why we are here, but while we have a seat at this table, we should accept the cup of goodness life has to offer. And be grateful for it.", ">\n\nAll of the things you named are good examples of people doing things that don’t seem to give them pleasure, for pleasure. I realize now that “happiness” is extremely vague and it’s pretty much circular. It’s a synonym for a lot of words.", ">\n\nAh - what I was trying to say is that there are different “flavors”, different intent and meaning behind the actions of people in the the words I used. That they aren’t synonyms, exactly. Each term I used was meant to convey a slight slant on a slightly different intention and observed behavior.\nBut words fail, and I may not have explained my feelings well.", ">\n\nI mean, - ignoring the question of whether you're right or now - that is not covered by the meaning of the word \"selfish\".\nWhat you're describing is the concept of motivation - we do something because we believe that it is something that we should do, in some way or another. That is inherent to all actions.\nThe point is that, under that assumption, it makes no sense to define \"selfish\" in such a way. I would even argue that \"selfish\" always excludes one's own gratification - if you do something for fun but do not harm or hinder anyone else, few people would call it \"selfish\". The idea of something being \"selfish\" is always directed outwardly. It talks about influences and results outside of one's own psyche, as that is the only thing reasonably affecting others.", ">\n\nDoes a person care for others because it makes him happy, or does it make him happy because he cares about others? \nYou’re framing happiness as the origin motive here, but it may be that happiness is the byproduct of caring for someone.", ">\n\nIt’s interchangeable. That doesn’t combat my view.", ">\n\nMax Stirner / Johann Kaspar Schmidt's entire ethical philosophy revolves around this. But at the end of the day, he concludes that even if humans are effectively driven solely by their own desires and what makes them happy, what of it? That doesn't change the fact that human beings are biologically driven towards empathy and sympathy.\nEven if one loves another because it makes them happy, they still love. Even if one helps another because they believe they need to get in a good deed for the day or because it makes them feel better or they were raised to believe that they need to help others, that doesn't change the fact that they're still helping another individual.\nPeople do things for reasons born from themselves, that's a no-brainer. But it also changes absolutely nothing at the end of the day.", ">\n\nI argue that your premise is at odds with itself. If the only human motive is selfishness, why do people do self sacrificing acts?\nWhile yes, I agree with you, our organic brains are hard wired to seek pleasure, and that certain pro social behavior is itself rewarding, it is nonetheless pleasure at the feeling of others pleasure, the very definition of empathy. \nConsider this: a group of men are fighting in a war. One man volunteers to run out and draw away the enemy's fire. He knows this will more than likely kill him. If he is absolutely selfish, why would he do it? Why would he sacrifice all pleasure for the lives of others?\nYes you can boil down that it is perhaps self reinforcing to be seen as heroic, but is that selfish? Is the reward for doing so truly self centered or does it only matter if one believes that OTHERS will find it so? In a vacuum, bravery is foolish, and leads to death, the end of all pleasure. But belief that others will see it as worthy and a good example (independent of one's religious perspective) makes it reinforcing, makes it pleasurable, makes it worth while to the suicidally brave hero. \nConsider the opposite. Antisocial behavior. Theft, murder etc. You have what I want so I take it from you by force. Self indulgence to gluttony, to addiction, to Ultimately self destruction. This too leads one to pleasure and death, but , in the well adjusted/non delusional mind at any rate, brings with it guilt. Self imposed suffering for benefitting from others suffering. The same guilt you feel when you see others in pain knowing you are the cause or indirectly related to it. A truly selfish mind would cause no guilt, would steal and kill as long as it benefited them (think chaotic evil).\nEmpathy and self sacrifice. These things, though rewarding to the self, are examples of delaying or denying one's pleasures and joy for the sake of others. The feelings these bring us encourage us to act so, but they are not evidence of absolute selfishness. These are evidence that we can get along with others. Conversely, guilt at actions and thoughts shows that we do care for others, and that our motives are not entirely self centered. \nNow that I think about it, why am I even writing this to you? For the meaningless pleasure of a delta? To show that I'm right to someone I don't know and will never meet? Or am I doing it because someone I don't know and will never meet asked me for my help to find a logical way out of a moral quandary, one who's tenants and beliefs bring them angst and perhaps some guilt? You, OP, may never even read this comment, so any pleasure in it is mine alone, but that pleasure is not in my own head. It starts, and ends, with the belief that I will change your view on this point and hypothetically feel better. To that, this effort is itself entirely directed towards someone else's benefit. That is not selfish.", ">\n\nYou have an amazing comment here and I did actually read it. \nThe conclusion you came to in regards to why you typed it out is wrong. I don’t know which aspect of it brought you the pleasure, but something did. And that was your main motivation.", ">\n\nThe problem here is is that your engaging in a fallacy called begging the question. In response to people's arguments, you say that they only did that because it brought them pleasure. But that's the idea you're trying to prove. You've taken that conclusion, and made it your assumption, and it's very easy to prove something if you begin with it as an assumption.", ">\n\nOur behavior is to a large extent dictated by our upbringing, our genes, our current physiological state, much more than we'd like to admit.\nCase in point, exercise feels good but I don't get my Ass out of the chair. It doesn't make me happy to procrastinate, I don't think it will, I know exercise will though. Yet I don't do it.\nArguably many, if not most, of our behavior is automatic and reflexive. Ingrained habits. Behavioral schemas running on autopilot. Yet, if you question why person x did behavior y, they'll guickly come up with a justification. Now that justification might be ultimately anchored in hedonism and thus be \"selfish\", but that's not the same as hedonistic motive causing the behavior.\nSocial justification theory is one understanding in the above direction, and explains things such as culture, communication, language, etc.\nYesterday I did the dishes. I often do the dishes. If pressed, I'll say I do it because I enjoy a clean kitchen or to make others happy or to feel good because I did good. But it's an automatic behavior for me. Usually I just do it. Good upbringing perhaps. Or what about those who do split decisions like risking their lives for someone else. Do you think they did the mental calculus of what gives them the most pleasure? Did they even have time to do it? But when asked afterwards, you can be sure they have a good reason for it, although if pressed they'll say they did it without thinking.\nOthers, on the other hand, would stand and watch. Did they think it through or it just wasn't in their \"programming\" to do so?", ">\n\nWhat about someone like Peter Singer? Or Immanuel Kant? Or Mother Theresa? I’ve heard Theresa lived am awful life.", ">\n\nYou're right that we're all equally \"selfish\" but it's not happiness that is what drives us: it's survival. Specifically survival of our genetic material. That means successful reproduction at all cost. Happiness, to the extent that it has any meaning at all, is just one marker of progress toward the purpose of survival. \n\nBeing told that you are no better in motive than anyone else on the planet may be a hard pill to swallow.\n\nOnly if you have mistakenly subscribed to the concept of a moral hierarchy - i.e. that people (usually the person with that belief) are \"better\" than others beyond any context. \n\nI recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it\n\nI don't think you should. It's correct (besides the misidentifying happiness as the incentive). And while it may seem negative, there's a ton of positive implications you can take from it: \n1) Forgiveness - since we're all inherently doing the same thing. Most importantly: forgive yourself for not being an angel. \n2) Responsibility - it's up to you to not let the chaos and darkness inside you get the upper hand since you're not inherently \"better\" than those who failed at that. \n3) Prevent atrocities - by understanding that it's not just \"madness\" or some other kind of dismissal of the bad guys, we understand the risk is that any normal person can do terrible things. Knowing that is key to preventing it. See the Banality of Evil.\n4) Gratitude - to think that we - being pure survival-oriented entities, having clawed our way past a brutal, unforgiving competition over countless other species and wound up creating concepts like forgiveness, justice and countless works of beauty is perhaps the most remarkable occurrence imaginable. \nThat's just off the top of my head. It's not ordered or complete.", ">\n\n∆. As a result of this comment, I see that my view is not as disadvantageous as I thought it was before your comment. I see that this view has positive, as well as negatives. I see that it’s not entirely bad.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AloysiusC (7∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI would probably say that human motive ultimately boils down to emotions (as opposed to rational justification), but not necessarily just happiness. I think happiness is a somewhat specific emotion.\nAs far as selfishness goes, i don't know if I'd say everyone's equally selfish. I think there is such a thing as having concern for another's well being. Sure it might not be true altruism, but there certainly is a difference between having concern for another's well being and withholding empathy or displaying apathy for someone else's suffering.", ">\n\nThe motion you argue. Is loosely constructed because of the complexity over human emotions, motives, and the human mind itself. What your post created is a topic without room to discuss because you hold the opinion high ground as the topic starter. Judging from some responses you aren't to inclined to openly evaluate someone's responses with an unbiased eye. This is less of a cmv and more a, \"This is my opinion, say it isn't so I can say it is.\"\nTake the example, a homeless man offering money to a wealthy man who has no cash for a busfare. \nYour perspective follows: The homeless man gave up his money to feel happy that he helped someone else.\nThe homeless man's perspective: I know what it's like having no money, so I'll spare someone else from having to experience not having money, even if it is a small thing. I'll be broke but it's better to help than sit around and let others suffer. \nAnyone could come in and poke any type of emotional, or logical holes in this example, and that's the point. You can't label the motives of every single human. Fortunately, almost no one is exactly the same as someone else. I can work a job, I don't do it because I'm happy to work, or happy to make money. I do it because the world runs on money and I have 0 options to live other than get a job. The alternative is. Be homeless. Neither option makes me happy. I'd rather be lazy all day if I could, and do what I want. But I can't. Because I have to work so I can pay bills, buy food, go places to have fun, buy games. My hobbies make me happy. My forced existence and forced life of working does not.", ">\n\nI would challenge the view that this view is disadvantageous. Can you say why you think it is?", ">\n\nYes, I’ll copy and paste my reply to another person with an extremely similar question to yours. \n“Yes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”.\nHow have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me?\nI have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me”", ">\n\nFrom the other angle: It's not so much about happiness as it is avoiding guilty feelings. Sometimes we know that any pleasure gained or convenience preserved by not helping others is trivial compared to the amount of anguish allowed to befall that person in most need of help.", ">\n\nI agree.", ">\n\nSome people get happiness out of making others happy. Some people only get happiness from doing things for themselves.\nThe fact that we are all motivated by what makes us happy, does not make us equally selfish, simply because different things make us happy. IE, gift giving vs gift receiving.\nI think to be correct, all humans are motivated by happiness, but we are not equally selfish because different things make different people happy.", ">\n\nUm you know that most of the time people are just trying to be nice? I know that may seem like an alien emotion to you but that's just the case. Are doctors just doing what they do out of their own personal happiness? Some of them are, but most of them just want to help people in need.", ">\n\nOP is misusing both the words ‘selfish’ and ‘happy’\nSelfish in the definition provided necessitates a lack of consideration for others. If I sacrifice myself for my son, that is entirely because of my consideration for him. And it will not make me happy. It will make me dead. I’d do it with fear and anger and pain in my heart. But I’d do it. This is not a selfish act. \nHappy - op is using the word happy to mean basically any reason for any action. It doesn’t make me happy to work, but I do it out of necessity. Is this better than abject poverty? Yes. Does that mean I’m doing it to be happy? No.", ">\n\nOf all the reasons people do what they do, the pursuit of happiness wouldn’t be in the top 5", ">\n\nI don’t think this will change your mind - but what difference does it make for you to assume one’s intents? \nYou shouldn’t assume anything of anyone, you’ll drive yourself nuts and be wrong the majority of the time anyway. \nNo one here, you included - can ever determine if you’re correct. We’d need to survey the consciousness of every living human. Your ‘adopted philosophy’ is just a shot in the dark. Absolutes are rarely useful.", ">\n\nGo have a kid, friend. I promise you will do a bunch of stuff that makes you miserable because you want someone else to be happy.", ">\n\nSome people feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things for others. Some people do not feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things only for themselves. The people in the former category are more selfless than those in the latter category.", ">\n\n\nHumans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest. We don’t have to do anything, so everything that we do is for that reason. \n\nWhat about all the people who hate their job but still go to work every day? You might say spending money makes them happy but what about the people who work so that they can pay their rent and feed their family? It would be pretty cynical to say their just doing what makes them happy. It is more like they are doing it so they do not feel worse.", ">\n\nI am pretty much in support of this typical utilitarian view. If you actually want to get this ideology debunked, I would say the biggest problem is not what it says about any individual, but the application of it.\nSo by saying the application I mean that utilitarianism inevitably entails some sort of tradeoff when one's happiness affects the happiness of others. It entails that as long as the gain by person A is bigger than the loss by person B, then such action is beneficial to society as a whole as the absolute unit of happiness increases. Following this logic, one could argue that sacrificing a few people for the \"greater good\" is justified, and this is against some of the basic ideas of constitutionalism, a fundamental ideology upon which the modern state is built. Say, you cannot kill an innocent person, take his organs and use them to save five people. \nThis is pretty much the problem of the application of utilitarianism, but again, I don't think the view itself is problematic. Hope this can help.", ">\n\nYou need to draw a distinction between happiness and satisfaction. This is analogous to the difference between something being beautiful and something being sublime. \nI could be happy by eating candy all day, but I would not be satisfied. But some things that make me satisfied do not make me happy. Like studying math makes me satisfied, but at the cost of happiness. \nSo happiness becomes problematic if we treat it monolithically. At the least we need to recognize some core distinctions and say that what we are motivated by is a complicated relationship between happiness, satisfaction, and unhappiness and dissatisfaction.", ">\n\nHuman's primary motive is survival\nOnce survival is ensured, then the primary motive shifts to happiness.\nIn the modern world, basic survival is assured for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time (quality of life may vary, but usually basic survival is assured). So, without the need for the survival motivation, most of us have transitioned to the happiness motivation.\nTo your second point, people in (true) communal cultures derive happiness BOTH from their own selfish desires AND from the successes of others. Modern society bastardised the 2nd part and frames the success of others as something to be jealous of - and I don't just mean monetarily, even family success is affected. In other words, thr American Dream is a farce\nWithout the understanding that the success of others isn't something to be jealous of, we dive further into our selfish desires, and it seems as though our selfish desires are the only path to happiness.", ">\n\nYesterday I made myself a ramen noodle and Vienna sausage meal. It caused me great sadness to eat it, because it was disgusting but I am poor and I was hungry. When I was 23 I slept in my car not because it brought me happiness but because it was cold outside and I was tired. Happiness hasn’t been in my motivation pool until recently. Happiness is a great motivator, you know what else motivates people? Hunger.", ">\n\nYes. But. Happy people don’t want to think about it.", ">\n\nThis is some nihilistic, pseudointellectual bullshit. You don't want your view changed, you want to be condescending and seem like some tortured mind crumbling under its own genius. Get over yourself, maybe go outside and see that the world is actually a nice place, despite what you may see on the news and social media.", ">\n\nI honestly wish this was true but its very obvious you've never had to deal with any form of mental illness before.\nWhat I mean to say is, you believe this due to a bias you have. You may actually be more selfish than others(or less). Your post doesn't indicate either. But some of us live a life we hate where nothing we do makes us happy, and I feel like you must have lived a very different life to feel the complete opposite.", ">\n\nAbsolutely not. I'd dolre for my child than myself. Ijs\nThe point of life is happiness and challenge. However you can't enjoy anything without contrast. Losing and loss. If your baselines are raised your expectations also rise. So you'll be in a downward spiral if you think it's just happiness.", ">\n\nI can counter this argument! This discussion is highly anecdotal though.\nI think every human has one end goal: Love. \nTo be loved, to love, love.\nPeople that hurt do so because they want to be loved but have lost their way. \nPeople that help do so because they love, or want love, and that could never be selfish because what difference does it make if the help is all the same in the end? Love is all the same." ]
>	[ "/u/a2ew (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI just pinched myself hard enough to cause pain and leave a mark. I expected no happiness out of this. I experienced no feelings of happiness out of this.\nMy motive was just to prove the easily provable point that humans only motive is not happiness. Just observing humans doing things will also reflect this truth repeatedly.\nYou could argue that self happiness is one of the strongest human motivators, but clearly it isn't the only human motive.", ">\n\nPinching yourself did bring you happiness, although you may not be fully conscious of it. Maybe it brought you happiness because you thought it would be a factor in proving your point, or maybe it brought you happiness because you liked the feeling. How it brought you happiness doesn’t matter. \nYou wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t bring you happiness", ">\n\nYou're wrong. It didn't bring me happiness. I know this because I experienced it personally. You insist it did without any knowledge or evidence only because if it didn't that disproves your point.\nTyping this comment brings me no happiness, yet I'm doing it.", ">\n\nSo let me ask this: if not for your own benefit, why did you make the comment? Why didyou pinch yourself? \nIt's easy to say \"nuh uh\". It's harder to actually really justify your position. Are you saying you don't like being right? You don't enjoy answering reddit cmvs? You don't want to participate in the community? If all that is so, then why are you here? If it's not so, are you not then motivated by a personal desire to enjoy yourself? To find happiness?", ">\n\nLazy copy/paste from another response because I think it fits here also:\n...\nI could have chosen to look at cute animal pictures or watch a funny video. Both of those things would have brought me more happiness than engaging with this thread. So why did I do it? What was my motive? It clearly wasn't seeking happiness.\nI'm not sure what my motive is. But the fact that there is more than one motive to choose from means OP's claim that there is only 1 motive must be incorrect.", ">\n\nPerhaps you chose to reply here because engaging in this discourse makes you a more intelligent and well-rounded person, while watching cat videos most certainly would not? You become happier as a result of further enhancing your skills.", ">\n\nThis gets posted quite a bit and inevitably relies on the fact that the poster has redefined selfishness to define any voluntary action when most english speakers use selfish to describe behavior that priorities oneself unreasonably to the detriment of others.\nYes -- people, when they're making conscious choices, do things for reasons. You might donate to charity because it makes you feel good that you're improving the conditions of those less fortunate than you. You might leap in front of a bus to protect a child because you don't think you could live with being the kind of person who allowed a child to perish. You might rob a bank because you want money and you don't care about the emotional distress and physical risk you'll cause the teller.\nThose are all reasons that the doer found satisfactory (I guess you could say that made them happy, although I think happiness is more complicated than that). but clearly we can make distinctions as to the quality of each justification relative to the impact of the action.", ">\n\nYour first point effectively means nothing other than you recognize the difference. Wouldn't this then make it easier to respond to, not more difficult? Or do you find the question tedious? \nYou didn't actually attempt to prove him wrong as much as you emphatically agreed with him. You listed no examples where someone does things for no reason, only that there are reasons someone would do good things(all personally beneficial).", ">\n\nWell I am curioous why you think it is a negative view or something you want to get rid of. I don't understand the negative implications of it. \nHow is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?\nAnd what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?", ">\n\nIt’s a negative view because I find myself using it to justify people’s actions that aren’t just. It’s also oversimplifies humans and the reasoning as to why we do the things we do. I would like to believe that humans are complex than this. \n\nHow is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?\n\nThat in itself is not bad. I’m saying that having the ideology is disadvantageous to me and that is why I want to change it. \n\nAnd what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?\n\nI don’t think there is any alternative.", ">\n\nEverything is super simple if you reduce them down far enough. Humans are complex, but if you boil every possible motivation to do something as “happiness” then they stop being as complex. Then when you discard any morality around WHY they’re “happy” and call all happiness seeking as equally “selfish,” then they’re even simpler. \nNobody has ever used “selfless” to refer to a person who does something that they have absolutely no reason to do, and hate doing. Most people would consider somebody who does things that only makes them miserable mentally ill. And yet the words selfish and selfless continue to exist.\nWhy? Because when people use those terms they’re talking about the reasons behind a person’s happiness. Somebody who is made happy by helping other people is considered selfless, while somebody who is only made happy by hoarding wealth or power is considered selfish. \nThe myriad of reasons we feel what we feel are what makes humans complex. The end result of actually feeling the emotions is just a biochemical response and can seem simple if you remove all other context.", ">\n\nSometimes people sacrifice their lives, for other people's happiness, survival or various other motives.\nThis means they no longer get to experience happiness, at least earthly happiness.", ">\n\nWell they sacrifice their lives because it benefits them to save others.\nFor example, in some religions kids are taught that if they die in a heroic way, or if they die for their God, they will go to heaven. This is why they find happiness in sacrificing their life. But the motivation was still their own happiness.", ">\n\nAtheists sacrifice their lives for others too. People voluntarily spend their final moments in pain while fully expecting no happiness to come of it.", ">\n\nI understand that atheist do it too. That was only an example. I agree with your first sentence. I only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.", ">\n\n\nI only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.\n\nBut how? You agreed that some people sacrifice their lives, and the only advantage was that maybe there's some religious reward. So take away the religious award, and presume that the person didn't sacrifice themselves as a suicide measure, and what \"selfish happiness\" is left?", ">\n\nLike most circular disprovable hypothesis this is also probably false. It is intellectually identical to something like \"god\". \nBeyond that trap, you can certainly point to depressed people who relieve misery of the deepest level bit only to make things tolerable. They find no happiness, and don't think it even a possibility. If you don't believe happiness can exist for you generally or experiential then it can't motivate you.\nOr...you can look at it as a consequence not a motivator. I would stop a bullet from hitting my child even if it made me sad. It just happens that it wouldn't. It is not the motivator, just a consequence of following and achieving you more root motivation.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is not selfish to pursue happiness; it is selfish to pursue happiness at the expense of other people’s.", ">\n\nThe only issue I can see with this is that your definition of selfish mentions \"lacking consideration for others,\" and people are capable of considering and acting for others in a way that is irrelevant to your own needs. You could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire, but I think it's an area to consider.", ">\n\n\nYou could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire\n\nI agree with that argument.", ">\n\nI understand the reasoning for this view. It simplifies people and creates a baseline for every act a person could commit. If only happiness was the root cause for everything people do. If it were, I think we'd be able to understand each other. \nAt the very least, psychologists would stop tearing their hair out trying to quantify motivation. \nThere's a LOT that goes into it. There's roughly four approaches, I think? Behaviorist, Humanistic, The hierarchy of needs, and Cognitive. But Im not sure any of them would simplify all human motivation as a pursuit of happiness. \nWhy? Mainly, what is happiness? Think seriously: How do you define the state of being happy? What does that mean? I know, not something you usually think about in an internet thread. \nSo according to the oxford dictionary: The state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one's circumstances.\nCool. What's pleasure? \nPleasure: a state of feeling or being happy or satisfied\nWow, that was circular af, thanks oxford. Fine, what chemicals make happiness?\nScience says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.\nSo I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?", ">\n\nThis was extremely insightful. \n\nScience says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.\n\nSo I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?\nYes, if we think that it will bring us pleasure.", ">\n\nLet's say We know it will. It is a fact. So let's say this magical brain jar is offered to you. Science can put your brain in serotonin, dopamine, endorphin mix. \nDo you accept?", ">\n\nNo I don’t only because I don’t actually think it will make me happier. Science says it will, but it sounds terrible. It sounds like hell in my opinion.", ">\n\nWhy? I am telling you that in this scenario, you will be happy all the time if you do this.", ">\n\nToo absolute.", ">\n\nI'm not sure this position is actually that meaningful.\nThere's still a difference between a person who is happy to make others suffer and a person who is happy to make others happy. And we should try to train ourselves - and our children - to be happy at the happiness of others, and sad at the sadness of others. \nAll your position does is change virtue from \"helps people even if it makes them sad\" to \"has learned to be happy when helping others\", which is not, in practice, all that different. I think it sounds different to a kind of person who really doesn't value feelings very much, but the whole point of kindness, of goodness to other people, was feelings in the first place. If anything, an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and +1 unit to me is better than an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and -1 unit to me.", ">\n\nAll of this seems to be true, but it doesn’t disprove or change my view. It was insightful though.", ">\n\n\nHumans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest.\n\nI'll pick apart the word \"only\" in that statement. Humans are social animals, and we're perfectly capable of doing things that benefit the group at the expense of ourselves. In evolutionary biology, altruism is behavior that increases the fitness of others at the expense of your own fitness. Like when someone sacrifices themselves to rescue others, they are trading away all future profits and pleasures for the benefit of others. That simply doesn't add up from a personal utility perspective. Indeed, if everyone always selfishly pursued their own immediate interests at the expense of group survival, we would have died out as a species; living together and sharing resources meant making compromises on our personal freedom and happiness.", ">\n\nI have £5 in my wallet, I'm heading to the bar to buy a pint which will make me happy.\nInstead I give the £5 to charity and head home.\nThe act of giving money made me feel some satisfaction but that's because I was concerned about others. It also cost me the happiness of having a pint, so overall my happiness may be lower then not giving the money.", ">\n\nDevil's advocate: \nWhatever choice would have brought you more happiness is hypothetical. However, the decision you made on the spot is what matters. If it was possible to thoroughly analyze all factors that went through your head at the time, your donation was still out of self-interest and at the time outweighed the negatives. \nFor example, even if you didn't \"gain\" happiness, you avoided suffering from guilt/shame etc.", ">\n\nIf my expected opportunity cost of happiness was higher than the happiness generated though then I haven't acted to maximize my happiness, and I feel no guilt or shame for having a pint instead of giving money to charity. so that argument doesn't hold up.", ">\n\nThe problem is that you assume it didn't maximize your happiness. The decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it. In retrospect we can evaluate that it was the \"wrong decision\", sure, but not based on the information you had at the time.\nWe're speaking hypotheticals so neither if us can prove our position nor do I know how much you like beer or charities (guilt was just an example). Personally, I can't think of a single conscious decision human beings could make that's truly selfless.", ">\n\n\nThe decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it.\n\nI'm saying the opposite, humans can and do things that they don't believe will maximise their happiness. All of these actions are therefore selfless.", ">\n\nThe usual problem here is with what does it mean to be selfish. \nBecause being concerned chiefly with your own personal profit and pleasure as defined in your \"every action is ultimately concerned with ones own search for pleasure\" is not necessarily the same as \"lacking consideration for others\".\nLike there's a difference between long and short term selfishness. Like a shortsighted act of selfishness might be to steal something because you want it. You have it now someone else doesn't, clear win-lose situation. But you could also cooperate with others form friendships and relationships that make you both better off because of it. You could still argue that \"... but ultimately it makes you happy\", but that's fundamentally a different set of actions than the short sighted version of selfishness. The letter kind of selfishness might even lead you to perform acts that would, out of context, be described as altruism. So are you still talking about the same thing and would the long term selfishness still fit the \"lacking considerations for others\" part? Because maybe you draw happiness from the happiness of other people so your happiness relies chiefly on their happiness.", ">\n\nYour argument is reductionary. All cars have tires. So all cars are tires? It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. \nEven altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego. A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. \nThis is more so a lense that speaks about you the observer than it does the subject. \nLogic is a good tool but a bad master. You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you. Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience. Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊", ">\n\nThank you \n\nYour argument is reductionary. All cars have tires. So all cars are tires? It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. \n\nWell it’s more like me saying that all cars are at least 51% (or majority) tires. Now imagine the definition of “tires” is “majority of tires” (similar to how the definition of selfish is concerned chiefly with your own personal pleasure). That means that all cars are tires. \n\nEven altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego. A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. \n\nThis is similar to what my point is. \n\nLogic is a good tool but a bad master. You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you. Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience. Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊\n\nI think that being disproved is what I need to get rid of this ideology and that’s why I posted this. You have a great day as well.", ">\n\nHow exactly do you expect someone to change your view? Because it seems that anything someone argues does not bring happiness, you would argue it does. If I have a piece of information that would hurt someone else and I withhold that information to spare their wellbeing, even if they told me they didn't want to know, is that still selfish? Have I brought myself happiness even if the information is painful and I think they should know but telling them would unwillingly hurt them?", ">\n\n\nI want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked. \n\nTell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this? \nWalk by a homeless man and you give him money, it can be used as evidence for this being true. Don't give him money and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Kick him and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you happy and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you sad and it can be used as evidence for this being true. \nNo matter what you do in any situation, it can be twisted into being evidence as this being true. There's no actual substance to this idea because it's completely impossible to disprove and it has no predictive power.", ">\n\nI would like to believe that this can be disproved because I admitted it is not beneficial to have it. I also admit that I don’t see that it can be logically disproved, but I have hope. You may be right. \n\nTell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this?\n\nI don’t have an answer to this question.", ">\n\nYou're missing my point. Imagine a scientific theory like this \"all objects go the direction they want to go\" and then any time I saw an object go any direction I said \"Look it's poof of my theory!\". You could never disprove this, but at the same time you wouldn't have to. It's unfalsifiable and untestable. It makes no predictions. It's a completely meaningless theory. Yours is the same.\nIt relies on a twisted definition of selfish. Is the person who gives $5 to charity really equally selfish as the one who steals $5 from charity?", ">\n\nEvery situation can be trivially reduced, this does not mean it is reasonable to do so. Some will say that, because we can imagine a selfish interpretation for every interaction, that all interactions must therefor be selfish. That is, that altruism does not exist because we have decided all interactions are zero-sum. \nBut all interactions are not zero-sum, and just saying it's so doesn't make it so. \nIf you are starving, and I give you my cookie, I'm not suddenly as asshole if I feel good about it. I did a good thing and I feel good about that. That's a win win, a scenario where both parties benefit. \nIf someone then comes and says, \"But, Loaf, you only gave him a cookie so you would feel good!\" they have now said that either I am lying, or I am delusional. Either everyone in the world is pretending that goodness is a thing so that we can trick each other, or everyone who thinks goodness is a thing is actually crazy.\nWhen modeling human interactions, it's not really helpful to reduce them so far that we conclude that most people are deluded. At that point, we aren't really talking about human interactions. We are talking about \"well, genetic expressions prompt you to do this and that, and hormones are making you do XYZ.\" Again, now we have reduced things past the point of usefulness. There's merit in discussing the role of smaller elements to the emergent properties they together create, but that's not the only place we find merit. \nConsider the validity of saying, \"A sandwich is just atoms,\" or \"A painting is just pixels.\" \nSo to when we say \"A good action isn't good if you are motivated by feeling good.\" It's not useful, and we are distracted by its triviality. \nReject the zero-sum approach. You can do something for the sake of another person, and you can simultaneously feel good about doing that.", ">\n\n\nSelfish: of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. \n\nEmphasis on the bold bit. That doesn't apply to your argument. Eg:\n\nThe only reason that one helps others is for his own personal benefit: his happiness\n\nWe don't help others necessarily because we want to be happy. We often get happiness from doing so, but for it to qualify as selfishness by your definition, that happiness needs to be the main objective. That is not the case.", ">\n\nI've meet along people in the medical who would love to quit because they don't enjoy but stay because they feel it would be wrong not to use their experience and education to continue to help despite they hate actually having to do it.If you place other people's positive experience above your own how can you be pursuing happiness.Sure you could say it's out of guilt but reducing guilt is More a middle ground position then a positive development.", ">\n\n\nlacking consideration for others\n\nEven if my happiness is my ultimate goal, if that happiness is derived from consideration for others, then it is not selfish. Self-interested, sure, but not selfish.", ">\n\nThis is a hard argument to debunk because “happiness” can mean basically anything. Are you referring to pleasure? Satisfaction?, fulfillment? \nI can buy a new today and it will make me feel “happy” for a bit.\nI can save the money and feel “happy” about that. \nSee what I mean?", ">\n\nThis claim is an unfalsifiable self-fulfilling prophecy, and thus it is impossible to change your view. You've basically defined happiness as \"any reason why anyone does anything.\" A person fighting a murderer to save a child is by your definition \"selfish\" because they either find gratification from doing the right thing or would otherwise feel guilty for having done nothing.\nAny example a commenter could possibly give will fall prey to your circular reasoning. You'd simply reject any altruistic motive and claim that all motives are fundamentally based on \"happiness,\" even though you haven't defined what \"happiness\" even is.\nIf we really boil your view down it's really just an argument that free will doesn't exist.", ">\n\nThe human capacity for empathy allows us to make other people well being part of our own well being. You can deconstruct the mechanics of altruism but that doesn’t change what it is. Of course there is an internal mechanism. Sure you end up at self interest but that self interest is one that has the capacity to incorporate others into it. If we never evolved empathy what “self-interest” looks like we be very different.\nSo you can say it’s all self-interest but you have to ask what each self interest is. Someone who finds fulfillment taking care of babies cares more for others than someone who finds fulfillment eating them.\nA related point is that frameworks that center around judging individuals moral character often don’t make much sense and judging outcomes is much more sensible when it comes to actually defining a definition of ethics, even if in application judgements are implemented.", ">\n\nYou're 100% right", ">\n\nYou are mistaken about what selfish means.\nLets take two people. A gets happiness from doing things for others, from seeing other people be happy. B gets happiness from doing things that come at a detriment or even harm to others.\nThat difference personality is what is called selfish in Bs case. Both are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.\n\nWhat or who decides the things that make a person happy is unknown\n\nThe cause of them becoming who they are is irrelevant, just the fact of who they are matters. This isn't about fault.", ">\n\nThe analogy you’ve used to try to get me to understand what selfish means does not match with the standard Oxfords language’s definition of selfish that I provided in my post. \n\nBoth are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.\n\nIn other words, they are concerned chiefly with one’s own profit or pleasure. In other words, they are both selfish.", ">\n\nIt does though, maybe i worded it unclearly. Pleasure is not the same as happiness.\nGetting happiness from giving others pleasure vs getting happiness from giving yourself pleasure. If you use Oxford's definition, you need to use Oxford's meaning. And if someone gets happy helping others, then they by definition are NOT chiefly concerned with their own pleasure, but with that of others.", ">\n\nI'd say you should judge less by people's intentions than by their actions. If someone does something for a friend that gets them no material gain except for happiness, describing that as a selfish act seems extremely suspect to me. \nYou seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. A defining trait of selflessness, in my opinion, is being happy to make others happy.", ">\n\n\nYou seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. \n\nIt is not wrong. Whether you shared the pleasure or not and whether it gave them more pleasure or not doesn’t matter according to the standard definition of selfish. \nWhat were the other things you were concerned about when you did that action that had nothing to do with your own personal pleasure? Was your own personal pleasure at least 51% of what you were concerned about? \nIf you were to answer the first question I’m sure everything you say would have to do with your own personal pleasure. And if you answered yes to the second question, it was a selfish act.", ">\n\nOf course it matters on the standard definition of selfish. If I give up 5 pleasure units so my friends can get 10 units, it's still selfless even if I still get 3 pleasure units.", ">\n\nI had another comment challenging the first part of the view -- but I'd like to challenge the 2nd part separately.\n\nAll humans are equally selfish\n\nOne way to measure how selfish a person is would be to look at how far they are willing to go to obtain their own happiness. One way to measure this is by how much unhappiness or pain/suffering they are willing to cause others for self happiness. \nThere are many things I could do that would make me happy but those things would cause others sadness, harm, or suffering so I choose to not do those things. A different person may care so much about their own happiness that they are more willing to cause sadness, harm/suffering to others to achieve their own happiness.\nThis shows that not all humans are equally selfish. \nI agree with your point that kind acts can be selfish. However, that doesn't mean all humans are equally selfish. Some humans are more selfish than others.", ">\n\n\nI recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked.\n\nCould you expand on this a little? What do you mean by ‘adopted’ - how have your behaviours changed? In what ways has this disadvantaged you?", ">\n\nYes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”. \nHow have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me? \nI have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me", ">\n\nIt seems like you would say that it’s your experience that this has been a bad way to organise your behaviour. Right? You’re getting sub optimal outcomes. \nWhy do you think everyone else would act this way, in this case? Do you think the whole world is organised so that we act to our own detriment? You don’t think any of us would adjust our behaviour if that was the case?", ">\n\nIt sounds like you've already identified the problem with this view. You've taken a concept that already has a common usage understanding and redefined it in a way that robs it is any practicality. Everyone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.", ">\n\n\nEveryone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.\n\nBut I haven’t done that. I’ve just used the standard definition of the word.", ">\n\nSelfish in common usage implies a willingness to act dishonestly or harm others for personal gain. It's not just having positive regard for your own well-being and acting on it in general.", ">\n\nWhy would I use the word “selfish” in the “common usage” rather than the definition? Who truly knows what a word implies in the common usage? Why do you think you know the “common usage”? \nThis is a terrible point. You’re saying that the definition of the word isn’t the appropriate definition to use.", ">\n\nCommon usage is something you absorb just by existing in the world and interacting with people. Most words you know you never had to explicitly look up the meaning. A good definition is one that accurately captures how people actually use a word.", ">\n\nBut here's the real question - what the hell is \"happiness\"? I would argue that your point is invalid purely based off this, since happiness is essentially a byproduct and a concept we attribute to certain feelings in a certain context. If you ask anyone to describe happiness they will describe how they feel when they are \"happy\". What they should really be saying is they feel endorphins, oxytocin and dopamine which create a feeling of fulfillment and this can lead to a moment of joy or elation. Is that moment happiness? Or is happiness the absence of sadness? Which is a question in itself", ">\n\nWhen I pet a puppy am I not chiefly concerned with both my happiness and the puppy's happiness? In other words, even when I do things that make me happy, can't I also do them because they make someone else happy? Can't I choose which action to take based upon maximizing both my happiness and someone else's? \nIf so, then I am not \"chiefly concerned with [my] own profit,\" but concerned for my profit and someone else's at the same time.", ">\n\nSo if someone presses a loaded gun to my head and tells me to perform a sex act on them or else they’ll blow my head off, I would perform the sex act because it makes me happy to do so? \nThere are other motivators besides happiness. Survival is a huge one for humans. And sometimes surviving means you’ve nothing to look forward to than to keep surviving.", ">\n\n\nThe only human motive is happiness\n\nWhen I go to the eye doctor, I know that by not flinching, I will have a faster more streamlined eye exam. I flinch a lot regardless of this knowledge. Human instinct can sometimes run counter to what will make us most happy.", ">\n\nYea what you do usually won’t be the thing that will actually bring you the most happiness. Yea, it may put me in the happiest position to do whatever I need to in order to make a ton of money and be fit and get all of the things we value as humans etc. But that doesn’t mean we do what will actually make us happy.", ">\n\nI do get your point and tend to agree, but you could avoid a lot of responses below by not using the word \"selfish\" but instead something along the lines of: \"Humans aren't capable of conscious decisions which don't benefit themselves in some way\". \nWe use the word selfish to describe a personality trait, usually understood as a lack of consideration for others. Which is definitely a spectrum and not equal among all humans. \nWhat I do think is universal, which is also the point you're trying to get across, is that every single human action is rooted in some level of self-interest. To either gain happiness or avoid suffering.", ">\n\nI think you’re right about me being able to avoid a lot of the responses below by wording the view differently. I’m not sure what I can do now that it’s posted except for further explain my point. \nThank you for understanding the point im attempting to get across.", ">\n\nWe have not evolved based on happiness. We have evolved to survive and pass on our genes. Happiness is a reward we sometimes get for doing things that promote one of these two activities but people will stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they perceive that their survival will be threatened if they leave.", ">\n\nDo you believe in free will? It would be hard to believe this and free will at the same time.", ">\n\nNot really. Since the things that determine what brings us happiness is unknown and can’t be changed, we don’t really have free will.", ">\n\nWhat about people with mood disorders which prevent them from enjoying anything?", ">\n\nThey may not actually experience the happiness, but the motive is the same.", ">\n\nHow is it the same if they cannot meet the definition of happiness that you're using? People who have affective disorders have interferences with the hormones which feed the \"happiness\" emotion. As such they're not capable of acting in a way that benefits them. It tends to make their worldview more dire and shapes/alters their motivations. Oftentimes the lack the ability to act in any way that encourages their own personal gains.\nThe missing thread here that's jumbled up is that you're too limited on your \"selfish\" definition. By and large people don't act completely independent of others unless they're diagnosed as a sociopath. In reality, humans are naturally social creatures which means they act in the benefit of people of their concern. Families are often times the most likely to benefit from this.\nPeople with mood or social disorders (autism spectrum) often times wind up outside of these circles of interest for other people. This leads to isolation and further dismissal of their problems.\nIf your worldview was true there wouldn't be cliques, political divide, or activists group. You've taken a concept of self interest and extrapolated it out past a functional definition. Yes people are out for their own self interests, but oxytocin specifically is a defining social hormone that gives reciprocity with other people creating strong social bonds.\nYes, it's a chemical feedback system which results in good feelings, but those are in the interests of helping others only for the reasons that it feels good to help others. Therefore it's not intrinsically selfish as you assert here.\nThe proof of this is in the people that either lack that function (sociopaths) or people in which that social feedback system is stunted (depressive or autism disorders) lack social fulfillment and it impacts their lives for the worst.", ">\n\nIt may just be syntax, but I think the subtlety of words can be important.\nI’d posit that contentedness is indeed a universal driver, but happiness may not mean exactly the same thing… pleasure-seeking can be detrimental sometimes - I smoke and drink too much, because it makes me feel happy. It also makes me feel guilty and worried about my health, decreasing happiness when I wake up at 3am and can’t sleep for worry I’ll die before old age. \nSeeking contentment, a solid roof over my head and the means to provide for myself, good conversations with loved ones - having loved ones in general - watching fireworks and giving a kind word to a coworker who I don’t particularly care for, but is going through a rough time… all of those things do indeed make me feel “good”, content, and sometimes happy. Happy isn’t a state you can maintain consistently at all times, content CAN be… if you have some luck and the means. So I think they’re different. \nIt may be a very good thing that humans seek pleasure - food tastes good for a reason. We need to crave fats and protein or we wouldn’t be here. Get a dopamine drip when we eat a beautiful meal. \nLooking at a pretty painting can give us that reward drip too. A song you love, etc. \nSo you could say humans are addicted to happiness. We actively seek it, probably for very sound biological reasons - and yet, as with any addiction, some of us can take it too far…\nYou are right that making a sacrifice can be for pleasure. Martyrdom - for instance, the one coworker who never takes a lunch break, and loves to loudly remind everyone with a “poor me, but no no I’m fine, I guess I just care about the work more than anyone else!” They are certainly getting “satisfaction” from feeling superior, even if they have an unhealthy relationship to happiness. \nWe are animals, after all, and I doubt you would fault a cat for self-serving behavior. \nSelf-serving isn’t the same as selfish. Self-preservation isn’t selfish. Self-centered is often used in the same way as, but technically, isn’t “selfish”. \nAnd self-absorbed isn’t even always such a bad thing, tho it sure can be. \nSelfish is more like greedy. A need to take as much as possible, regardless of whether it hurts others. \nYes, I want to live and live fairly well, I’d also really like to be able to do that without hurting anyone, and then the next goal is to help others. All of those goals will make me content, and sometimes happy. That’s a very good thing! Am I truly selfish in those goals? \nI’m trying to leave morals out of this as much as possible and just think more about biological aspects, but, even tho we are animals, we are a unique breed, in that we can consider morals. Unlike my cat, who wants to kill that bunny that’s wandering my field. Not for desperate need for food, but for happiness. No moral quandary there for him. Lucky guy.\nYou sound existential in a sad way. I’m sorry you feel that way. I suppose you could say that taking a moment to talk to you about this, and share my perspective, is me trying to make myself happy. That I will feel smug or smart or… or something, maybe even just being kind, that makes me happy. \nI guess maybe caring that you sound sad kinda makes me feel validation that I’m a caring person. But more than anything, I kinda just would like you to feel more positive about people and their intentions. It might make you… happy!\nEat that cheeseburger and watch that great movie! Denying yourself any pleasures because you’re focusing on how selfish it is to enjoy life is self-torture. \nCouldn’t that be sorta the same thing you’re talking about? Might it make you feel “good” to deny yourself? Is it possibly hypocritical and martyrdom? Just like my coworker.\nBut also try to be altruistic and kind - happiness can be so very good. It’s a feedback loop that puts more happy in a sometimes cruel world. \nWe don’t know why we are here, but while we have a seat at this table, we should accept the cup of goodness life has to offer. And be grateful for it.", ">\n\nAll of the things you named are good examples of people doing things that don’t seem to give them pleasure, for pleasure. I realize now that “happiness” is extremely vague and it’s pretty much circular. It’s a synonym for a lot of words.", ">\n\nAh - what I was trying to say is that there are different “flavors”, different intent and meaning behind the actions of people in the the words I used. That they aren’t synonyms, exactly. Each term I used was meant to convey a slight slant on a slightly different intention and observed behavior.\nBut words fail, and I may not have explained my feelings well.", ">\n\nI mean, - ignoring the question of whether you're right or now - that is not covered by the meaning of the word \"selfish\".\nWhat you're describing is the concept of motivation - we do something because we believe that it is something that we should do, in some way or another. That is inherent to all actions.\nThe point is that, under that assumption, it makes no sense to define \"selfish\" in such a way. I would even argue that \"selfish\" always excludes one's own gratification - if you do something for fun but do not harm or hinder anyone else, few people would call it \"selfish\". The idea of something being \"selfish\" is always directed outwardly. It talks about influences and results outside of one's own psyche, as that is the only thing reasonably affecting others.", ">\n\nDoes a person care for others because it makes him happy, or does it make him happy because he cares about others? \nYou’re framing happiness as the origin motive here, but it may be that happiness is the byproduct of caring for someone.", ">\n\nIt’s interchangeable. That doesn’t combat my view.", ">\n\nMax Stirner / Johann Kaspar Schmidt's entire ethical philosophy revolves around this. But at the end of the day, he concludes that even if humans are effectively driven solely by their own desires and what makes them happy, what of it? That doesn't change the fact that human beings are biologically driven towards empathy and sympathy.\nEven if one loves another because it makes them happy, they still love. Even if one helps another because they believe they need to get in a good deed for the day or because it makes them feel better or they were raised to believe that they need to help others, that doesn't change the fact that they're still helping another individual.\nPeople do things for reasons born from themselves, that's a no-brainer. But it also changes absolutely nothing at the end of the day.", ">\n\nI argue that your premise is at odds with itself. If the only human motive is selfishness, why do people do self sacrificing acts?\nWhile yes, I agree with you, our organic brains are hard wired to seek pleasure, and that certain pro social behavior is itself rewarding, it is nonetheless pleasure at the feeling of others pleasure, the very definition of empathy. \nConsider this: a group of men are fighting in a war. One man volunteers to run out and draw away the enemy's fire. He knows this will more than likely kill him. If he is absolutely selfish, why would he do it? Why would he sacrifice all pleasure for the lives of others?\nYes you can boil down that it is perhaps self reinforcing to be seen as heroic, but is that selfish? Is the reward for doing so truly self centered or does it only matter if one believes that OTHERS will find it so? In a vacuum, bravery is foolish, and leads to death, the end of all pleasure. But belief that others will see it as worthy and a good example (independent of one's religious perspective) makes it reinforcing, makes it pleasurable, makes it worth while to the suicidally brave hero. \nConsider the opposite. Antisocial behavior. Theft, murder etc. You have what I want so I take it from you by force. Self indulgence to gluttony, to addiction, to Ultimately self destruction. This too leads one to pleasure and death, but , in the well adjusted/non delusional mind at any rate, brings with it guilt. Self imposed suffering for benefitting from others suffering. The same guilt you feel when you see others in pain knowing you are the cause or indirectly related to it. A truly selfish mind would cause no guilt, would steal and kill as long as it benefited them (think chaotic evil).\nEmpathy and self sacrifice. These things, though rewarding to the self, are examples of delaying or denying one's pleasures and joy for the sake of others. The feelings these bring us encourage us to act so, but they are not evidence of absolute selfishness. These are evidence that we can get along with others. Conversely, guilt at actions and thoughts shows that we do care for others, and that our motives are not entirely self centered. \nNow that I think about it, why am I even writing this to you? For the meaningless pleasure of a delta? To show that I'm right to someone I don't know and will never meet? Or am I doing it because someone I don't know and will never meet asked me for my help to find a logical way out of a moral quandary, one who's tenants and beliefs bring them angst and perhaps some guilt? You, OP, may never even read this comment, so any pleasure in it is mine alone, but that pleasure is not in my own head. It starts, and ends, with the belief that I will change your view on this point and hypothetically feel better. To that, this effort is itself entirely directed towards someone else's benefit. That is not selfish.", ">\n\nYou have an amazing comment here and I did actually read it. \nThe conclusion you came to in regards to why you typed it out is wrong. I don’t know which aspect of it brought you the pleasure, but something did. And that was your main motivation.", ">\n\nThe problem here is is that your engaging in a fallacy called begging the question. In response to people's arguments, you say that they only did that because it brought them pleasure. But that's the idea you're trying to prove. You've taken that conclusion, and made it your assumption, and it's very easy to prove something if you begin with it as an assumption.", ">\n\nOur behavior is to a large extent dictated by our upbringing, our genes, our current physiological state, much more than we'd like to admit.\nCase in point, exercise feels good but I don't get my Ass out of the chair. It doesn't make me happy to procrastinate, I don't think it will, I know exercise will though. Yet I don't do it.\nArguably many, if not most, of our behavior is automatic and reflexive. Ingrained habits. Behavioral schemas running on autopilot. Yet, if you question why person x did behavior y, they'll guickly come up with a justification. Now that justification might be ultimately anchored in hedonism and thus be \"selfish\", but that's not the same as hedonistic motive causing the behavior.\nSocial justification theory is one understanding in the above direction, and explains things such as culture, communication, language, etc.\nYesterday I did the dishes. I often do the dishes. If pressed, I'll say I do it because I enjoy a clean kitchen or to make others happy or to feel good because I did good. But it's an automatic behavior for me. Usually I just do it. Good upbringing perhaps. Or what about those who do split decisions like risking their lives for someone else. Do you think they did the mental calculus of what gives them the most pleasure? Did they even have time to do it? But when asked afterwards, you can be sure they have a good reason for it, although if pressed they'll say they did it without thinking.\nOthers, on the other hand, would stand and watch. Did they think it through or it just wasn't in their \"programming\" to do so?", ">\n\nWhat about someone like Peter Singer? Or Immanuel Kant? Or Mother Theresa? I’ve heard Theresa lived am awful life.", ">\n\nYou're right that we're all equally \"selfish\" but it's not happiness that is what drives us: it's survival. Specifically survival of our genetic material. That means successful reproduction at all cost. Happiness, to the extent that it has any meaning at all, is just one marker of progress toward the purpose of survival. \n\nBeing told that you are no better in motive than anyone else on the planet may be a hard pill to swallow.\n\nOnly if you have mistakenly subscribed to the concept of a moral hierarchy - i.e. that people (usually the person with that belief) are \"better\" than others beyond any context. \n\nI recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it\n\nI don't think you should. It's correct (besides the misidentifying happiness as the incentive). And while it may seem negative, there's a ton of positive implications you can take from it: \n1) Forgiveness - since we're all inherently doing the same thing. Most importantly: forgive yourself for not being an angel. \n2) Responsibility - it's up to you to not let the chaos and darkness inside you get the upper hand since you're not inherently \"better\" than those who failed at that. \n3) Prevent atrocities - by understanding that it's not just \"madness\" or some other kind of dismissal of the bad guys, we understand the risk is that any normal person can do terrible things. Knowing that is key to preventing it. See the Banality of Evil.\n4) Gratitude - to think that we - being pure survival-oriented entities, having clawed our way past a brutal, unforgiving competition over countless other species and wound up creating concepts like forgiveness, justice and countless works of beauty is perhaps the most remarkable occurrence imaginable. \nThat's just off the top of my head. It's not ordered or complete.", ">\n\n∆. As a result of this comment, I see that my view is not as disadvantageous as I thought it was before your comment. I see that this view has positive, as well as negatives. I see that it’s not entirely bad.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AloysiusC (7∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI would probably say that human motive ultimately boils down to emotions (as opposed to rational justification), but not necessarily just happiness. I think happiness is a somewhat specific emotion.\nAs far as selfishness goes, i don't know if I'd say everyone's equally selfish. I think there is such a thing as having concern for another's well being. Sure it might not be true altruism, but there certainly is a difference between having concern for another's well being and withholding empathy or displaying apathy for someone else's suffering.", ">\n\nThe motion you argue. Is loosely constructed because of the complexity over human emotions, motives, and the human mind itself. What your post created is a topic without room to discuss because you hold the opinion high ground as the topic starter. Judging from some responses you aren't to inclined to openly evaluate someone's responses with an unbiased eye. This is less of a cmv and more a, \"This is my opinion, say it isn't so I can say it is.\"\nTake the example, a homeless man offering money to a wealthy man who has no cash for a busfare. \nYour perspective follows: The homeless man gave up his money to feel happy that he helped someone else.\nThe homeless man's perspective: I know what it's like having no money, so I'll spare someone else from having to experience not having money, even if it is a small thing. I'll be broke but it's better to help than sit around and let others suffer. \nAnyone could come in and poke any type of emotional, or logical holes in this example, and that's the point. You can't label the motives of every single human. Fortunately, almost no one is exactly the same as someone else. I can work a job, I don't do it because I'm happy to work, or happy to make money. I do it because the world runs on money and I have 0 options to live other than get a job. The alternative is. Be homeless. Neither option makes me happy. I'd rather be lazy all day if I could, and do what I want. But I can't. Because I have to work so I can pay bills, buy food, go places to have fun, buy games. My hobbies make me happy. My forced existence and forced life of working does not.", ">\n\nI would challenge the view that this view is disadvantageous. Can you say why you think it is?", ">\n\nYes, I’ll copy and paste my reply to another person with an extremely similar question to yours. \n“Yes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”.\nHow have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me?\nI have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me”", ">\n\nFrom the other angle: It's not so much about happiness as it is avoiding guilty feelings. Sometimes we know that any pleasure gained or convenience preserved by not helping others is trivial compared to the amount of anguish allowed to befall that person in most need of help.", ">\n\nI agree.", ">\n\nSome people get happiness out of making others happy. Some people only get happiness from doing things for themselves.\nThe fact that we are all motivated by what makes us happy, does not make us equally selfish, simply because different things make us happy. IE, gift giving vs gift receiving.\nI think to be correct, all humans are motivated by happiness, but we are not equally selfish because different things make different people happy.", ">\n\nUm you know that most of the time people are just trying to be nice? I know that may seem like an alien emotion to you but that's just the case. Are doctors just doing what they do out of their own personal happiness? Some of them are, but most of them just want to help people in need.", ">\n\nOP is misusing both the words ‘selfish’ and ‘happy’\nSelfish in the definition provided necessitates a lack of consideration for others. If I sacrifice myself for my son, that is entirely because of my consideration for him. And it will not make me happy. It will make me dead. I’d do it with fear and anger and pain in my heart. But I’d do it. This is not a selfish act. \nHappy - op is using the word happy to mean basically any reason for any action. It doesn’t make me happy to work, but I do it out of necessity. Is this better than abject poverty? Yes. Does that mean I’m doing it to be happy? No.", ">\n\nOf all the reasons people do what they do, the pursuit of happiness wouldn’t be in the top 5", ">\n\nI don’t think this will change your mind - but what difference does it make for you to assume one’s intents? \nYou shouldn’t assume anything of anyone, you’ll drive yourself nuts and be wrong the majority of the time anyway. \nNo one here, you included - can ever determine if you’re correct. We’d need to survey the consciousness of every living human. Your ‘adopted philosophy’ is just a shot in the dark. Absolutes are rarely useful.", ">\n\nGo have a kid, friend. I promise you will do a bunch of stuff that makes you miserable because you want someone else to be happy.", ">\n\nSome people feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things for others. Some people do not feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things only for themselves. The people in the former category are more selfless than those in the latter category.", ">\n\n\nHumans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest. We don’t have to do anything, so everything that we do is for that reason. \n\nWhat about all the people who hate their job but still go to work every day? You might say spending money makes them happy but what about the people who work so that they can pay their rent and feed their family? It would be pretty cynical to say their just doing what makes them happy. It is more like they are doing it so they do not feel worse.", ">\n\nI am pretty much in support of this typical utilitarian view. If you actually want to get this ideology debunked, I would say the biggest problem is not what it says about any individual, but the application of it.\nSo by saying the application I mean that utilitarianism inevitably entails some sort of tradeoff when one's happiness affects the happiness of others. It entails that as long as the gain by person A is bigger than the loss by person B, then such action is beneficial to society as a whole as the absolute unit of happiness increases. Following this logic, one could argue that sacrificing a few people for the \"greater good\" is justified, and this is against some of the basic ideas of constitutionalism, a fundamental ideology upon which the modern state is built. Say, you cannot kill an innocent person, take his organs and use them to save five people. \nThis is pretty much the problem of the application of utilitarianism, but again, I don't think the view itself is problematic. Hope this can help.", ">\n\nYou need to draw a distinction between happiness and satisfaction. This is analogous to the difference between something being beautiful and something being sublime. \nI could be happy by eating candy all day, but I would not be satisfied. But some things that make me satisfied do not make me happy. Like studying math makes me satisfied, but at the cost of happiness. \nSo happiness becomes problematic if we treat it monolithically. At the least we need to recognize some core distinctions and say that what we are motivated by is a complicated relationship between happiness, satisfaction, and unhappiness and dissatisfaction.", ">\n\nHuman's primary motive is survival\nOnce survival is ensured, then the primary motive shifts to happiness.\nIn the modern world, basic survival is assured for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time (quality of life may vary, but usually basic survival is assured). So, without the need for the survival motivation, most of us have transitioned to the happiness motivation.\nTo your second point, people in (true) communal cultures derive happiness BOTH from their own selfish desires AND from the successes of others. Modern society bastardised the 2nd part and frames the success of others as something to be jealous of - and I don't just mean monetarily, even family success is affected. In other words, thr American Dream is a farce\nWithout the understanding that the success of others isn't something to be jealous of, we dive further into our selfish desires, and it seems as though our selfish desires are the only path to happiness.", ">\n\nYesterday I made myself a ramen noodle and Vienna sausage meal. It caused me great sadness to eat it, because it was disgusting but I am poor and I was hungry. When I was 23 I slept in my car not because it brought me happiness but because it was cold outside and I was tired. Happiness hasn’t been in my motivation pool until recently. Happiness is a great motivator, you know what else motivates people? Hunger.", ">\n\nYes. But. Happy people don’t want to think about it.", ">\n\nThis is some nihilistic, pseudointellectual bullshit. You don't want your view changed, you want to be condescending and seem like some tortured mind crumbling under its own genius. Get over yourself, maybe go outside and see that the world is actually a nice place, despite what you may see on the news and social media.", ">\n\nI honestly wish this was true but its very obvious you've never had to deal with any form of mental illness before.\nWhat I mean to say is, you believe this due to a bias you have. You may actually be more selfish than others(or less). Your post doesn't indicate either. But some of us live a life we hate where nothing we do makes us happy, and I feel like you must have lived a very different life to feel the complete opposite.", ">\n\nAbsolutely not. I'd dolre for my child than myself. Ijs\nThe point of life is happiness and challenge. However you can't enjoy anything without contrast. Losing and loss. If your baselines are raised your expectations also rise. So you'll be in a downward spiral if you think it's just happiness.", ">\n\nI can counter this argument! This discussion is highly anecdotal though.\nI think every human has one end goal: Love. \nTo be loved, to love, love.\nPeople that hurt do so because they want to be loved but have lost their way. \nPeople that help do so because they love, or want love, and that could never be selfish because what difference does it make if the help is all the same in the end? Love is all the same.", ">\n\nWell, I guess you can always argue that by happiness you don't actually mean happiness but some sort of a broad self-serving concept. Cause \"happy\" is definitely not the word that motivates all actions people do. If you're hungry and in a hurry so you'll make yourself a shitty sandwich so you're a bit less hungry, you're not happy or even happier. You're often not even less miserable, you're just a bit less hungry.\nBut yes, if you bring it to that broad level, you're probably right. Already the way we've evolved means that our brain is wired for some sort of self-preservation, which then causes us to prefer to do things that keeps us alive and safe and reproducing etc. Which brings me to the next example: kids. People who have kids definitely do things that might not make them happy but are good for their kids. This is again not happiness, it might even be the opposite of that on the feeling-level, but they do it so their kids will have a better life. Again, in the broader sense, it's probably rooted to how we're wired to keep the human species going. \nBut I do think there are some exceptions to this. Like certain habits that you do and don't even know why you do them. They might have started from self-preservation or happiness but have progressed to a point where they might no longer serve any purpose. Or let's take it a step further: addiction. A lot of addicts are addicted enough that they don't get any happiness from their addiction. Sure, they get relief from the withdrawals they'd get if they stopped drinking/smoking/doing drugs but it's definitely not happiness. It's just a reaction." ]
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules. Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.) Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.	[]
>	[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]
A country mobilizing its entire cyber warfare units in order to take down a small satirical magazine shows you how much of a joke Iran is turning itself into. Iran is a stupid country and it is probably because its leaders are stupid too. This is the problem of every autocratic/theocratic State, it is not the bright people who get the top jobs, it is the stupid ones who always agree with the Leader and who can't think for themselves. EDIT: Iranian people are great, smart and everything, it is their leadership that sucks.	[]
>	[ "A country mobilizing its entire cyber warfare units in order to take down a small satirical magazine shows you how much of a joke Iran is turning itself into.\nIran is a stupid country and it is probably because its leaders are stupid too.\nThis is the problem of every autocratic/theocratic State, it is not the bright people who get the top jobs, it is the stupid ones who always agree with the Leader and who can't think for themselves.\nEDIT: Iranian people are great, smart and everything, it is their leadership that sucks." ]
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules. Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.) Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.	[]
> They even sort of reference this in one episode where Bandit uses one of Bluey's shirts to clean up a mess, and when she objects he replies, "You hardly ever wear it."	[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]
> Is Bluey the My Little Pony of the 2020s or something? It seems to have an absurd number of adult fans.	[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThey even sort of reference this in one episode where Bandit uses one of Bluey's shirts to clean up a mess, and when she objects he replies, \"You hardly ever wear it.\"" ]
> I hope not. it's my 2 year old's favorite cartoon.	[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThey even sort of reference this in one episode where Bandit uses one of Bluey's shirts to clean up a mess, and when she objects he replies, \"You hardly ever wear it.\"", ">\n\nIs Bluey the My Little Pony of the 2020s or something? It seems to have an absurd number of adult fans." ]
>	[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThey even sort of reference this in one episode where Bandit uses one of Bluey's shirts to clean up a mess, and when she objects he replies, \"You hardly ever wear it.\"", ">\n\nIs Bluey the My Little Pony of the 2020s or something? It seems to have an absurd number of adult fans.", ">\n\nI hope not. it's my 2 year old's favorite cartoon." ]
Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones? There are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.	[]
> everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right These aren't mutually exclusive options	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive." ]
> I know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated. The concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications. So you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife. Viewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity. For reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options" ]
> I have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot. especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated. Figuring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place Adding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. Also my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread." ]
> My overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption. The notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in." ]
> Well, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life. The notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity Yes but the idea of "punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity." ]
> I'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity. Trying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)" ]
> When the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?" ]
> I agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts." ]
> Back in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules." ]
> Yes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs." ]
> Ever been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses." ]
> Yes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession. But we are drifting away from the topic anyway.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used." ]
> Part of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway." ]
> Okay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around." ]
> Not assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish" ]
> But thats the problem, you understood my post as "Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell." ]
> First of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness. Second Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice. Now these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument. In the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent "place" and that it should be acvhieved through action ("build the kingdom of God"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20). Do these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for "Heaven" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well. Now it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation." ]
> Well i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post "strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones"	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament." ]
> I would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip. If someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating. BUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward. When I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"" ]
> The guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does." ]
> A much better summary, this exactly.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”" ]
> Yeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly." ]
> That's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity. Christianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol." ]
> But that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the "forgiveness" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning." ]
> But that doesn't change anything Yes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway." ]
> Technically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness." ]
> Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven You are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly." ]
> That doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your "sorry" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell" ]
> Too absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)" ]
> That is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life." ]
> Quite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope? Religion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea." ]
> But when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion. How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope? I do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked." ]
> this could have also happened with religion. MAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway. I do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate. Then your original statement is wrong.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate." ]
> With older ones you can't verify that anyway. I can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless Then your original statement is wrong. You should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong." ]
> I can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless You kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed. You should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious. My arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to "guilt trip".	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious." ]
> Our choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\"." ]
> Its a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins). lols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. of course isn't effective on everyone no, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring." ]
> proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. You can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend Except its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it." ]
> You can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. i can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept? because hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. Except its not except it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell." ]
> You can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today." ]
> OP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins" ]
> Who's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good" ]
> I somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?" ]
> Not at all, a very good thing	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?" ]
> Oh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing" ]
> Maybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently. If you've "been good" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great." ]
> The trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with. If heaven and hell don't exist you "might" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for. If they do exist you "might" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for. Heaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: "is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?" What I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die." ]
> Of course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you." ]
> Absolutely wait until you see it	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical." ]
> What is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it" ]
> How is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?" ]
> Its not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?" ]
> Every culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be "good." They just describe it differently.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is." ]
> I mean the entire purpose OF religion is population "control", if you wanna think of it like that. This isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. Religion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it. But this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you. Fake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently." ]
> How could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly." ]
> Good point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. for things they truly believed? Why didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then." ]
> The disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)" ]
> The way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell). Whether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So." ]
> When I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, makes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, I like black Tims and black hoodies	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)" ]
> Given the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies" ]
> What time are we talking about exactly?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”" ]
> You will find out for sure - some day.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?" ]
> If you mean one day as "when i die" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore "find out" things becaus im dead.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day." ]
> Do you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a "tool" as you say, to control populations?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead." ]
> What are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?" ]
> Religions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'. If you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?" ]
> There can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point. If you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. You just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there." ]
> Religion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever. You think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? Which of those seems more likely? You just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that I was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that" ]
> One doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious." ]
> Again though the same applies. Why isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip." ]
> Because it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?" ]
> Ok, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society. But that you think it evolved into a way to control society. But, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today? It seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems. One being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell. The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in. So you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering "Hell" means a lot of things, and "Heaven" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point." ]
> But, what if they actually believe it... That doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger .>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in. What do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of "Heaven and Hell"	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense." ]
> No. It's good if everyone plays that games rules.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.", ">\n\n\nBut, what if they actually believe it...\n\nThat doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger\n.>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nWhat do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of \"Heaven and Hell\"" ]
> Great post. Posts like this are why I am quickly becoming addicted to Reddit. Clarification: Can we frame the question as “Either Heaven and Hell (H&H) are real places to which a just G-d sends people based on His judgement or H&H are human-engineered methods of psychological control.” Let’s reference these two options as “real” and “fake”, respectively. Is this a correct way to frame the argument? Question: What would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind? just a guilt trip If people are guilty, what’s wrong with a guilt trip? at the time when the idea of Heaven and Hell was created It seems that we would expect H&H ideas to historically correspond with an increase in the group’s political power, right? If H&H ideas are just to control people politically and socially (what I previously referenced as “fake”), groups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas. If, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right? being an extremely useful tool. Beavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh Cogitatus regit mundum	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.", ">\n\n\nBut, what if they actually believe it...\n\nThat doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger\n.>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nWhat do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of \"Heaven and Hell\"", ">\n\nNo. It's good if everyone plays that games rules." ]
> What would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind? After replying to several comments earlier i realized that this post was not for this sub, simply because while it is something to debate about it is not something i can see myself changing my mind about. "Fake" H&H isn't exactly how you interpretated it because: a.) It is not solely used for mind control and manipulation b.) it is not necesarily reffering to the abrahamic view of H&H but to any simmilair beliefs of postmortem judgment affecting an afterlife or next life (e.g. karma) groups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas I dont see this as possible since without any kind of social control you don't have a comunity in the first place, and without a comunity you don't have a religion neither. Or maybe i misunderstood you. If, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right? As i said earlier, the concept of H&H was an elemnt taken from some earlier religions and has most likely alredy worked in some earlier societies as the tool im describing, before Christianity, and that would explain why it would be added to Christianity. Beavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh Cogitatus regit mundum Butthead reget mundum... cool huh huh	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.", ">\n\n\nBut, what if they actually believe it...\n\nThat doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger\n.>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nWhat do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of \"Heaven and Hell\"", ">\n\nNo. It's good if everyone plays that games rules.", ">\n\nGreat post. Posts like this are why I am quickly becoming addicted to Reddit.\nClarification: Can we frame the question as “Either Heaven and Hell (H&H) are real places to which a just G-d sends people based on His judgement or H&H are human-engineered methods of psychological control.” Let’s reference these two options as “real” and “fake”, respectively. Is this a correct way to frame the argument?\nQuestion: What would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\njust a guilt trip\n\nIf people are guilty, what’s wrong with a guilt trip?\n\nat the time when the idea of Heaven and Hell was created\n\nIt seems that we would expect H&H ideas to historically correspond with an increase in the group’s political power, right? If H&H ideas are just to control people politically and socially (what I previously referenced as “fake”), groups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas. If, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nbeing an extremely useful tool.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum" ]
> It is true to an extent but you are looking at it from an extreme point of view. Look up the New Testament, and look for all the places where Jesus guilt trips someone into believing in god. Spoiler: It literally never happens. Not even once. Sure, he gets mad at people a few times (like that one time when he drove out merchants from a temple with a whip) and he warns people about consequences of their clearly immoral actions, but when does he ever look someone in the eye and say "If you don't believe in me, you're a bad person because I say so"? Never. He had many opportunities to use religion to control the population in such a way, but in the accounts we have of him, he never did. People followed him because he was a great human being, not because he was a malipulating politician lining his coffers with his fame. The dude walked his talk. And that's a separate thing from what you're talking about, which is a bunch of people talking his walk. For whatever gain to themselves. Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't have a Tweet account where he can settle the disputes over people using his name in vain, so here we are. But anyway, to the point: If Jesus never guilt-tripped people about ideas of Heaven and Hell, and yet spoke about it often, then there's more to the metaphor.	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.", ">\n\n\nBut, what if they actually believe it...\n\nThat doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger\n.>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nWhat do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of \"Heaven and Hell\"", ">\n\nNo. It's good if everyone plays that games rules.", ">\n\nGreat post. Posts like this are why I am quickly becoming addicted to Reddit.\nClarification: Can we frame the question as “Either Heaven and Hell (H&H) are real places to which a just G-d sends people based on His judgement or H&H are human-engineered methods of psychological control.” Let’s reference these two options as “real” and “fake”, respectively. Is this a correct way to frame the argument?\nQuestion: What would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\njust a guilt trip\n\nIf people are guilty, what’s wrong with a guilt trip?\n\nat the time when the idea of Heaven and Hell was created\n\nIt seems that we would expect H&H ideas to historically correspond with an increase in the group’s political power, right? If H&H ideas are just to control people politically and socially (what I previously referenced as “fake”), groups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas. If, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nbeing an extremely useful tool.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum", ">\n\n\nWhat would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\nAfter replying to several comments earlier i realized that this post was not for this sub, simply because while it is something to debate about it is not something i can see myself changing my mind about.\n\"Fake\" H&H isn't exactly how you interpretated it because:\na.) It is not solely used for mind control and manipulation\nb.) it is not necesarily reffering to the abrahamic view of H&H but to any simmilair beliefs of postmortem judgment affecting an afterlife or next life (e.g. karma)\n\ngroups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas\n\nI dont see this as possible since without any kind of social control you don't have a comunity in the first place, and without a comunity you don't have a religion neither. Or maybe i misunderstood you.\n\nIf, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nAs i said earlier, the concept of H&H was an elemnt taken from some earlier religions and has most likely alredy worked in some earlier societies as the tool im describing, before Christianity, and that would explain why it would be added to Christianity.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum\n\nButthead reget mundum... cool huh huh" ]
> How is it guilt?	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.", ">\n\n\nBut, what if they actually believe it...\n\nThat doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger\n.>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nWhat do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of \"Heaven and Hell\"", ">\n\nNo. It's good if everyone plays that games rules.", ">\n\nGreat post. Posts like this are why I am quickly becoming addicted to Reddit.\nClarification: Can we frame the question as “Either Heaven and Hell (H&H) are real places to which a just G-d sends people based on His judgement or H&H are human-engineered methods of psychological control.” Let’s reference these two options as “real” and “fake”, respectively. Is this a correct way to frame the argument?\nQuestion: What would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\njust a guilt trip\n\nIf people are guilty, what’s wrong with a guilt trip?\n\nat the time when the idea of Heaven and Hell was created\n\nIt seems that we would expect H&H ideas to historically correspond with an increase in the group’s political power, right? If H&H ideas are just to control people politically and socially (what I previously referenced as “fake”), groups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas. If, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nbeing an extremely useful tool.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum", ">\n\n\nWhat would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\nAfter replying to several comments earlier i realized that this post was not for this sub, simply because while it is something to debate about it is not something i can see myself changing my mind about.\n\"Fake\" H&H isn't exactly how you interpretated it because:\na.) It is not solely used for mind control and manipulation\nb.) it is not necesarily reffering to the abrahamic view of H&H but to any simmilair beliefs of postmortem judgment affecting an afterlife or next life (e.g. karma)\n\ngroups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas\n\nI dont see this as possible since without any kind of social control you don't have a comunity in the first place, and without a comunity you don't have a religion neither. Or maybe i misunderstood you.\n\nIf, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nAs i said earlier, the concept of H&H was an elemnt taken from some earlier religions and has most likely alredy worked in some earlier societies as the tool im describing, before Christianity, and that would explain why it would be added to Christianity.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum\n\nButthead reget mundum... cool huh huh", ">\n\nIt is true to an extent but you are looking at it from an extreme point of view.\nLook up the New Testament, and look for all the places where Jesus guilt trips someone into believing in god.\nSpoiler: It literally never happens. Not even once. Sure, he gets mad at people a few times (like that one time when he drove out merchants from a temple with a whip) and he warns people about consequences of their clearly immoral actions, but when does he ever look someone in the eye and say \"If you don't believe in me, you're a bad person because I say so\"?\nNever. He had many opportunities to use religion to control the population in such a way, but in the accounts we have of him, he never did. People followed him because he was a great human being, not because he was a malipulating politician lining his coffers with his fame.\nThe dude walked his talk. And that's a separate thing from what you're talking about, which is a bunch of people talking his walk. For whatever gain to themselves. Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't have a Tweet account where he can settle the disputes over people using his name in vain, so here we are.\nBut anyway, to the point: If Jesus never guilt-tripped people about ideas of Heaven and Hell, and yet spoke about it often, then there's more to the metaphor." ]
>	[ "Do you believe that everyone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right? Are there some people in this world religious for positive reasons as opposed to negative ones?\nThere are certainly a lot of people manipulated by religion, but to say that everyone is like that is a bit reductive.", ">\n\n\neveryone who is religious is being manipulated, or is it possible that there are some people that truly believe their beliefs to be right\n\nThese aren't mutually exclusive options", ">\n\nI know it's been used like this sometimes but the concept of heaven and hell within Christianity is almost the exact opposite especially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\nThe concept of sin long predates the idea of heaven and hell, classical Judaism didn't really have all that much of a concept of heaven and hell. The afterlife was just known to be a dark place that wasn't all that nice from what we can tell. Sins were known to offend God and yet every person was in some way a sinner and as a result God would be righteously angry at the sinner and the sinner would need to undergo ritual purifications.\nSo you go from that understanding to the understanding that you have an immortal soul and that God will punish that immortal soul for the sins committed in this life with a less than pleasant afterlife (makes sense the afterlife was already thought to not be exactly that nice and God is righteously angry at sin). That sin is so broad that everyone sins (already kind of understood at least on a basic level) and so all have failed to live up to God. But that's okay, everyone is human and bound to fail to live up to the standards of a perfect god (original sin) so God provides a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (a concept already understood) but instead of a sheep he provides the most precious thing in the universe, a sacrifice of his own son the third person of the Trinity for the eternal forgiveness of sins and a pathway to heaven in the afterlife.\nViewed through this lens the origins of heaven and hell aren't a guilt trip at all, even from a secular lens if you believe none of it is still building on existent philosophy to tell people (particularly the downtrodden) that they are okay, that their sins are forgiven and that they will go to heaven during a time when the religious higher-ups wouldn't even interact with many of them due to their perceived sinfulness or ritual impurity.\nFor reference yes I understand this is all a massive oversimplification, it's a reddit thread.", ">\n\nI have read your comment but i am not really sure how to respond, i dont clearly see a point you are making. But ill give my best shot.\n\nespecially when figuring the philosophical understanding of the time when it originated.\n\nFiguring the philosophical underatanding of the time it originated has made me think in this direction in the first place\nAdding forgiveness to the equasion doesn't change the concept of Heaven and Hell and it doesn't debunk the theory neither because if you created the idea of Heaven and Hell to bring morals to those who lack it you want them to feel guilty if they do sin which leads to them feeling regret and that leads to asking for forgiveness. Also without forgiveness there would be no point of not comminting sins after you commited one since there is no way of undoing it. \nAlso my post is not necessarily about Christianity, its more about the manipulative nature of religions that makes people do certain things, for some its being moral and righteous, for some its dying in battle, for some its not eating too much and living modestly, depending on the conditions the religions were founded in.", ">\n\nMy overall point was that the origin wasn't what you suggested it was. A lot of the negative elements you're suggesting as being manipulative were pre-existing and the notion of heaven and hell being introduced doesn't really work in the way you suggested it does. Indeed for many people who became early Christians the idea of heaven was clearly a very liberating notion because they already believed themselves to be bound by sin and impure without hope of redemption. The notions inherent to the origins of heaven and hell provided that possibility for redemption.\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity. Hence why it's important to talk about the philosophical origins of Christianity. There were some precursor ideas in late classical Judaism and of course Zoroastrianism but the modern notions of hell in various Abrahamic religions really originate in Christianity.", ">\n\nWell, i never said these elementa were negative, manipulation isn't necesarily negative, example: manipulating someone into not murdering people is a positive deed. I never saw religion in a negative light only the people using it for negative things, but that doesn't change that it has a very (healthy) manipulative nature towards doing good things and living a good and peaceful life.\n\nThe notion of hell in Christianity, Islam and the religions that branched off from them comes from Christianity\n\nYes but the idea of \"punishment after death if you do wrong, reward if you do good\" is older than Christianity and christianity just formated it differently (Heaven and Hell)", ">\n\nI'm not entirely sure it is a lot older than Christianity, such elements are surprisingly absent from most religions especially pre axial age ones. But sure you can debate it, there was clearly a concept that actions in this life effect the next life in Dharmic religions before Christianity.\nTrying to move beyond my possibly sloppy wording of negative though, do you get my point that at least within Christianity these elements didn't really develop in the way you suggested?", ">\n\nWhen the concepts of heaven and hell became part of most societies most people top to bottom believed in it. In times when you did everything your parents said to do or starve, no further guilt trip was needed. Living in society takes some rules. The rules need to apply to everyone. Don't screw over those you live with, work to get food, and don't date your brother. These rules were there first then heaven and hell came as concepts.", ">\n\nI agree, but isn't that closer to my point of view than the opposite? Those who disobeyed the rulles needed to be dealt with, and it wasn't as easy to catch a criminal back in the day, the best way is by inserting guilt and fear in those who don't play by the rules.", ">\n\nBack in the day? I'm talking 1000's of years ago. It was much more dangerous to leave the community than stay. Often there was not a real chance of them going far except by running. So catching a criminal was in fact easier or at least the punishment happened. Because banishment from the community was often equal to death. I'm saying the loss of community was the real fear and quilt came with it, then the concepts of heaven and hell became part of religious beliefs.", ">\n\nYes i know what time we are talking about, it was just a metaphor. I think your depiction of these times are not 100% accurate but i mostly agree, although i disagree that catching criminals was easier, without any knowledge of fingerprints or actually any other method of catching criminals aside from witnesses.", ">\n\nEver been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.", ">\n\nYes but amish communities are very much different from living in the middle ages or the classical period, amishes are very isolated and that makes it a lot harder to fit into society if you are banished. Not saying it was easy back then but you still could live somewhere else if you knew the language and had a certain profession.\nBut we are drifting away from the topic anyway.", ">\n\nPart of your supposition is that these concepts are for controlling the masses. My response from the 1st are that community standards came before hell and heaven. The assumption that it was easy to move somewhere else is not even true for everyone today much less the middle ages. So community needs led to heaven and hell concepts. Not the other way around.", ">\n\nOkay, i agree and say that Heaven and Hell concept came after and was used to further embrace community needs, but that doesn't make it any less of a guilt trip. Because you are talking as if people back then lived in a criminal free utopia where anyone commiting crime instantly gets caught an bannished, which just isn't true. This way (using heaven and hell) you just prevent instead of punnish", ">\n\nNot assuming any criminal-free utopia. It is only a guilt trip if you believe it. Much more misery came from invaders coming in that held different beliefs, not heaven and hell.", ">\n\nBut thats the problem, you understood my post as \"Concept of Heaven and Hell is an evil manipulative guilt trip\" and I dont blame you, it does seem like that but i never said that. Not all manipulations are evil and not all guilt trips bring misery, manipulating someone into not murdering isnt evil and doesn't bring misery, but is still manipulation.", ">\n\nFirst of all Heaven and Hell or some equivalent has likely been present since humanity achieved consciousness.\nSecond Heaven and Hell isn't only based on punishment, but also reward. The way you look at it a 'carrot and stick' approach is closer than a guilt trip. Also in the abrahamic religions God judges the dead souls, so it also brings in a concept of justice.\nNow these arguments might not be what you're looking for (from your post it seems that you're an atheist). So allow me to bring up a psychological argument.\nIn the Bible there are many verses that suggest that Heaven is a transcendent \"place\" and that it should be acvhieved through action (\"build the kingdom of God\"). (Just a few passages: Luke 17:20-21, Mathew 6:30, Mathew 6:19-20).\nDo these passages, calls for actions suggest people should do good deeds? Yes! Is it because of fear of punishment? No. The motivation is different. You should do good deeds and try to make the world a better place. It will make you feel better and likely make the people around you more inclined to do the same. So in essence Heaven in this interpretation (!) is more similar to a mindset and a properly constructed society. Not only striving for \"Heaven\" gives your life meaning in this context, it makes others feel better as well.\nNow it's important that this last one is just an interpretation, however it does align with many things in the New Testament.", ">\n\nWell i guess we are both a bit one-sided on the topic when in reality, a combination of good deeds and avoiding sins is the intension of the idea. Now depending on what point in history and location we are talking about we could see different understandings of the bible and different ways of life in Chriatianity. I do believe you have showed the optimistic side of the concept in a brighter light but that didn't change my view. Because if the point was just to reward for good deeds, then Hell wouldn't be a thing. At best you prooved me 50% wrong because i was more focused on Hell but i did mention in my post \"strive towards good deeds and away from bad ones\"", ">\n\nI would argue that heaven is more of a reward and hell is more of a punishment rather than them working as a guilt trip.\nIf someone is motivated to not do something bad because they fear eternal damnation, that's very different than feeling guilty over their actions. If someone is motivated to do good in order to gain the reward of eternity in heaven, that's not guilt operating.\nBUT guilt definitely does operate in many religions that have heaven and hell. Guilt requires that you feel bad about an action because you recognize it is wrong, which is different (but sometimes related) than behaving a certain way to avoid punishment or seek reward.\nWhen I was in college, buying and consuming marijuana was illegal, and getting caught came with some form of punishment. Even though the punishment existed, I didn't believe buying and consuming marijuana was bad. So when my roommate and I were caught with weed in our dorm room and received a punishment, I didn't feel guilty (even though the punishment did work to change my future behavior in order to avoid punishment). In order for guilt to be effective, you have to convince people that certain things are actually bad or good. Heaven and hell don't do that, but teaching people that X and Y are sins and go against God does.", ">\n\nThe guilt trip part of it is not fear of hell, it’s more like “God loves you and your actions make him sad,look at what a piece of shit you are, he created you, gave you life, even sent his son to die for you, yet you spit in his face by doing this or that”", ">\n\nA much better summary, this exactly.", ">\n\nYeah I’m very familiar with this shit...I was raised by very strict fundamentalist Baptists..all it did was make me a good liar and turned me into the stereotypical wild pastor’s kid. See my username? I did heroin and meth for over a decade and I’ve got about 5 felonies lol.", ">\n\nThat's not really how heaven and hell work in Christianity.\nChristianity believes in God's forgiveness for sin. Once you are saved, you're not in danger of going to hell for sinning.", ">\n\nBut that doesn't change anything, forgiveness is given to those who feel guilty enough to ask for forgiveness, and if i am afraid of hell and accidetally or intentionally sinned i will ask for forgivness-> because i will feel guilt-> because i dont want to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Also the \"forgiveness\" had to be added since if it wasn't added then those who commited one sin go to hell no matter what meaning they could now do whatever they want since they will go to hell anyway.", ">\n\n\nBut that doesn't change anything\n\nYes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.", ">\n\nTechnically you are right, but you haven't changed my view because people fear of sin and punishment regardless of the option to ask for forgiveness (de facto) even though they have nothing to be afraid about. Also this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven, but some Indian guy who did only good in his life but worshiped something else would go to hell. If this is true then I am disappoint honestly.", ">\n\n\nAlso this makes Christianity as a religion very morally poor in my oppinion since Adolph Hitler could have become Christian and asked for forgiveness and gone to heaven\n\nYou are kind of ignoring the question of sincerity. He would need to be genuinely sorry, not merely doing so because he wanted to escape hell", ">\n\nThat doesn't change the damage he has done, it is not impossible for a serial killer or some war criminal to genuinely be sorry for what he has done but that does not make things right. Also i believe Islam did this better where those who you wronged need to forgive you instead. Your \"sorry\" doesn't and shouldn't always deserve forgiveness, there are simply actions that shouldn't be forgiven (example: Holocaust)", ">\n\nToo absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life.", ">\n\nThat is true, making my post 75% correct since i did mention this but i was more focused on the sins and negative side of the idea.", ">\n\nQuite extreme view don't you think? How about people who just wish there was some ultimate justice that would be served to everyone unlike in actual life? How about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\nReligion isn't just some tool of manipulation. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and people wouldn't give their lives for it nor choose volutairly. People often believe because they want to and not because they were tricked.", ">\n\nBut when there is hope, there are those who will exploit it, i know what you are saying but just like the comunists used poor and starving people to give them hope of equality and rise them to power this could have also happened with religion.\n\nHow about people seeking meaning in their effort and suffering? How about simple hope?\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.", ">\n\n\nthis could have also happened with religion.\n\nMAybe it did maybe it didn't. With older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI do think that this is what makes people religious aswell, but i also think that people in these conditions and these mindsets are the easiest to manipulate.\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.", ">\n\n\nWith older ones you can't verify that anyway.\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nThen your original statement is wrong.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.", ">\n\n\nI can't veryfy with any actually, newer or older, and neither can you, so that argument is useless\n\nYou kinda can. Start of scientology for example is much more documented than judaism. In older ones you're not even sure if certain characters realy existed.\n\nYou should re-read my original statement then, beacuse i never once mentioned in my post reasons why people become religious, nor did I say in my previous comment that that is the ONLY thing that makes people religious.\n\nMy arguments apply to questions of heaven-hell as well which you just reduced to \"guilt trip\".", ">\n\nOur choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.", ">\n\n\nIts a very effective way of manipulating the masses with religion, using a questions followers do not have an answer to (what comes after death) and by providing the answer (Heaven and Hell) you make people strive towards good deeds and away from bad deeds (sins).\n\nlols no. have you met religious people? they're not that good, mate. they sin and don't do good deeds just like any non-religious person, proving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nof course isn't effective on everyone\n\nno, this makes it sound like it's the minority that fear of hell doesn't work on - it's the majority. just look at the bible. even believers were sinning right left and center, murdering, raping, running away from god. so why doesn't hell work as a guilt trip for the majority? because the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend, just like infinity is too big to comprehend so people just don't think about it.", ">\n\n\nproving hell ain't guilt tripping them into anything. \n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. How can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause the concept of eternity is too big to comprehend\n\nExcept its not, its just scary to those who don't understand it and then they find comfort in something that sounds a bit better than infinite nothingness and thats eternal Heaven or Hell.", ">\n\n\nYou can't possibly know that, because all those who were corrected with the concept never commited sins and crimes in the first place. \n\ni can tho and this statement t is factually not correct; everyone sins before they become religious - they are born with it, Romans 5:12. if you need examples of sin before people becoming believers look at murders and bible heros Moses and Apostle Paul. \n\nHow can you know that there wouldn't be way more crominals and sinners without the concept?\n\nbecause hell isn't an effective method of scaring anyone straight. King David murdered and committed adultery and he knew god. Jonah knew god and ran away from him only to be swallowed by a whale. Peter denied Jesus three times and they were best mates. Lucifer himself was an angel in heaven and still disobeyed god, ending him up in hell. \n\nExcept its not\n\nexcept it is. the idea that there is no end to human life cannot be comprehended by human minds because everything on earth comes to an end - that's all we know for facts cuz we watch it all the time. then there's hell which is an abstract idea that no one has seen and there is no proof of it. if it were an effective method of 'manipulating the masses', then religious people wouldn't sin so much; they'd be too shit scared to instead of living for today.", ">\n\nYou can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins", ">\n\nOP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good", ">\n\nWho's mad? Based on what did you get to that conclusion? Im not even negatively criticising this, I am just pointing it out, as i said, i respect everyones beliefs, why would i be mad over something that doesn't affect me in any way?", ">\n\nI somewhat agree, despite thinking this is a bit of an unnecessarily cynical view. My question is, do you think that's a bad thing?", ">\n\nNot at all, a very good thing", ">\n\nOh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.", ">\n\nMaybe the ideas were created for that purpose, but it can be interpreted by consumers of the idea differently.\nIf you've \"been good\" then you don't worry about Hell. All you get to think about is Heaven, and that's just hope. Hope that there is something better when you die.", ">\n\nThe trouble with your post is knowing the perspectives and assumptions you're coming with.\nIf heaven and hell don't exist you \"might\" be right, IF that's what they were actually used for.\nIf they do exist you \"might\" be wrong IF that's not what they're actually used for.\nHeaven and hell could be used for guilt tripping, but they could also be used for bringing ultimate justice; whether real or fiction. The real question is: \"is this guilt trip or ultimate justice real? Or imaginary?\"\nWhat I mean is, are you assuming heaven and hell are real, not real, or leaving it open? Because that affects how people go about answering you.", ">\n\nOf course im leaving it open, I (nor anyone else) can't surely say if Heaven and Hell are real, but I can say the followers and those affected by this idea are very real, and they are affected in a way resembling a guilt trip Im, not saying everyone is affected the same and I am not saying that this effect has negative consequences. I am not commimg with any asumptions and accept both religious/biblical answers and philosphical.", ">\n\nAbsolutely wait until you see it", ">\n\nWhat is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?", ">\n\nHow is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?", ">\n\nIts not that differenr actually, and many people after commiting a crime, turn themseves in because of a guilt trip. The only difference is that law is law and they have a specific sentance for specific crimes. This just tells you something you are deffinetly unsure about (what comes after death) and use your uncertanty to make you obey the rules, and that is called manipulation. Im not saying its bad because it makes people do good things and live good lives, but it is what it is.", ">\n\nEvery culture I know of has some sort of belief in an afterlife being related to how we live on Earth. I don't think it's a guilt trip so much as an innate feeling/knowledge that there is in fact more to this life than this life. Even people who don't believe in an afterlife will generally feel the pull to be \"good.\" They just describe it differently.", ">\n\nI mean the entire purpose OF religion is population \"control\", if you wanna think of it like that.\nThis isn't a bad thing, and was debatably necessary for group cohesion earlier in humanity's development. \nReligion, whether what it preaches is real or not, is still a hell of a motivator. It doesn't matter if it's real; if someone believes it is, they will act as though it is. The dumber you are, the more readily you will accept this, often to the point of self-harm, and be happy about it.\nBut this is kind of mass mind control brain hack is also how we get stuff like baroque cathedrals or the Sistene Chapel ceiling or the Pyramids or Norse Exploration Vessels or what have you.\nFake Religion still gets real shit done a lot easier than facts do when it comes to motivating large groups of people quickly.", ">\n\nHow could it have been manipulation to control the masses when the first Christians for over 300 years died horrible and bloody deaths for things they truly believed? It wasn’t as though being a Christian was especially popular back then.", ">\n\nGood point, but the concept of postmortem judgment and something similar to Heaven and Hell is older than Christianity, and i never mentioned in my post that i was specifically talking about Christianity, but lets say i was. \n\nfor things they truly believed?\n\nWhy didn't those who lead them into horrible and bloody deaths die for the cause? Becuase they were too buisy using their peoples hopes and beliefs for their own benefit, or for greater good... whatever the reason is the mechanism is the same. Also the same factors that manipulated the people had also affected the speed at which it is spread (the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions)", ">\n\nThe disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Heaven means hanging out and vibing with like-minded people working together for a greater good, no drama, no chance of being sick, in the zone on a good day, etc etc., whereas Hell is being stuck with people that are just disagreeable/incompatible, demeaning/bullying in every way. Contrary to popular belief (even if explicitly explained in religious texts), it has nothing to do with hot/cold since some people (dis-)like extreme hot/cold (which beats the purpose of Heaven/Hell).\nWhether the grouping of people is by natural selection or divine intervention or however/whatever, that's up to specific religions to interpret--I just glean from the books and interpret it in my own personal way. (Which means YMMV)", ">\n\nWhen I die fuck it, I wanna go to hell, cuz I’m a piece of shit it ain’t hard to fuckin tell, \nmakes no sense being in heaven with the goody goodies, dressed in white, \nI like black Tims and black hoodies", ">\n\nGiven the decline in religious affiliation in the West, I don’t see how heaven and hell could be “a very effective way of manipulating the masses.”", ">\n\nWhat time are we talking about exactly?", ">\n\nYou will find out for sure - some day.", ">\n\nIf you mean one day as \"when i die\" then no obviously, since I won't have a funcioning brain to process information therefore \"find out\" things becaus im dead.", ">\n\nDo you think really that religion of all these sorts, throughout like... thousands upon thousands of years... is some grand conspiracy to actually create a \"tool\" as you say, to control populations?", ">\n\nWhat are you even trying to say? The religions are as old as societies and those who run societies want to control the population, also those who run societies have the power to create religions, and that is in the simplest possible terms. What grand conspiracy are you talking about, i am just using logic to connect interests with man made social systems that benefit the one who created it (aka religion). You're acting like you never heard of any time in history where religion was weaponized or used to manipulate people into doing things, good or evil, doesn't matter. Also whats with the aggresive aproach?", ">\n\nReligions of one type or another are older than any of these societies that would be 'creating them to control others'. I'm perfectly aware religion has been weaponized, nobody is acting like that, but it predates any societal system for 'control'.\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man. I have no idea what you are even talking about there.", ">\n\nThere can be no religion without some form of society, saying that a religion is older than society is just ridiculous, its like saying a TV is older than electricity. For a religion to appear, people must first live in a more or less ordered community which is called a society, and every human cominty has a leader who naturally searches for power over others, it is only logical and natural that this person will explore to find ways of controling the people and one of the best ways is by convincing them that he knows more than them, he knows of dieties in the skies who get mad if you do this and that...you get the point.\n\nIf you think I'm being aggressive then I donno what to even tell ya man.\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that", ">\n\nReligion is just a shared idea of a god or diety or high power or whatever.\nYou think that these tiny little tribes of people who believed in a god who made rain happen, and fire flash from the sky created these 'religions' in order to control people? Or... isn't it a thousand times more likely that the religion was 'created' to explain the natural world that they had no possible way to understand? \nWhich of those seems more likely?\n\nYou just started criticising me as if i said there is a top seceret cult that controls minds through religion and lives in the shadows and its nothing like that\n\nI was asking you a question about your idea. Relax bro, it ain't that serious.", ">\n\nOne doesn't exclude the other though so i say both, i never said religion as social construct was solely created to control people. I was only talking about the posmortem judgment and Heaven and Hell part, which i believe is a guilt trip.", ">\n\nAgain though the same applies.\nWhy isn't it far more likely that they were created to explain something that people were simply incapable of understanding, rather than some conspiratorial idea to control people?", ">\n\nBecause it is in my oppinion far more likely to be both than just an explanation for natural phenomena. Maybe (just maybe) not in some tribal society 6000 years ago but religion evolved and populations of comunities rised which required better laws, which means it required better control, and this is something that can be used for just that. If you give a hammer and time to a monkey you can expect it to start cracking nuts at one point.", ">\n\nOk, so it seems clear that it likely wasn't 'created' in order to control some society.\nBut that you think it evolved into a way to control society.\nBut, what if they actually believe it... because it's an explanation for something that we aren't capable of understanding, even today?\nIt seems to me you are going to have to be stuck with two problems.\nOne being that a great many people actually believe in Heaven and/or Hell.\nThe other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nSo you kinda just get stuck with a pretty small minority of people who 1) don't believe in it, but utilize it for control. Which is a small amount of people, and 2) They have to also believe in the type of Heaven/Hell that you are portraying, which shrinks the amount of people by another significant portion, considering \"Hell\" means a lot of things, and \"Heaven\" means a lot of things... many of which simply aren't being utilized for control because it wouldn't make sense.", ">\n\n\nBut, what if they actually believe it...\n\nThat doesn't change anything though, it doesn't affect that guilt trip the post was about, if anything honestly believing in it even makes it stronger\n.>The other problem is that a great many people don't believe in the Heaven and/or Hell that you think they believe in.\nWhat do you mean by this though, lets clear that up, because the Heaven and Hell i think people believe in is a postmortem judgment by God or karma or anything similair, that determines your afterlife or next life or something simmilair....and i don't think there are many variations of \"Heaven and Hell\"", ">\n\nNo. It's good if everyone plays that games rules.", ">\n\nGreat post. Posts like this are why I am quickly becoming addicted to Reddit.\nClarification: Can we frame the question as “Either Heaven and Hell (H&H) are real places to which a just G-d sends people based on His judgement or H&H are human-engineered methods of psychological control.” Let’s reference these two options as “real” and “fake”, respectively. Is this a correct way to frame the argument?\nQuestion: What would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\njust a guilt trip\n\nIf people are guilty, what’s wrong with a guilt trip?\n\nat the time when the idea of Heaven and Hell was created\n\nIt seems that we would expect H&H ideas to historically correspond with an increase in the group’s political power, right? If H&H ideas are just to control people politically and socially (what I previously referenced as “fake”), groups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas. If, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nbeing an extremely useful tool.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum", ">\n\n\nWhat would you see, or what argument would you hear, that would change your mind?\n\nAfter replying to several comments earlier i realized that this post was not for this sub, simply because while it is something to debate about it is not something i can see myself changing my mind about.\n\"Fake\" H&H isn't exactly how you interpretated it because:\na.) It is not solely used for mind control and manipulation\nb.) it is not necesarily reffering to the abrahamic view of H&H but to any simmilair beliefs of postmortem judgment affecting an afterlife or next life (e.g. karma)\n\ngroups that have no political or social control have no need to devlelop those ideas\n\nI dont see this as possible since without any kind of social control you don't have a comunity in the first place, and without a comunity you don't have a religion neither. Or maybe i misunderstood you.\n\nIf, however, despised minority religious groups (ante-Nicene Christians, pre-Hijrah Muslims, Jews…well, Jews just about any time) developed H&H concepts long before they took any sort of political or social power, that would tend to argue against the fake theory, right?\n\nAs i said earlier, the concept of H&H was an elemnt taken from some earlier religions and has most likely alredy worked in some earlier societies as the tool im describing, before Christianity, and that would explain why it would be added to Christianity.\n\nBeavis…you said “tool”. Huh huh\nCogitatus regit mundum\n\nButthead reget mundum... cool huh huh", ">\n\nIt is true to an extent but you are looking at it from an extreme point of view.\nLook up the New Testament, and look for all the places where Jesus guilt trips someone into believing in god.\nSpoiler: It literally never happens. Not even once. Sure, he gets mad at people a few times (like that one time when he drove out merchants from a temple with a whip) and he warns people about consequences of their clearly immoral actions, but when does he ever look someone in the eye and say \"If you don't believe in me, you're a bad person because I say so\"?\nNever. He had many opportunities to use religion to control the population in such a way, but in the accounts we have of him, he never did. People followed him because he was a great human being, not because he was a malipulating politician lining his coffers with his fame.\nThe dude walked his talk. And that's a separate thing from what you're talking about, which is a bunch of people talking his walk. For whatever gain to themselves. Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't have a Tweet account where he can settle the disputes over people using his name in vain, so here we are.\nBut anyway, to the point: If Jesus never guilt-tripped people about ideas of Heaven and Hell, and yet spoke about it often, then there's more to the metaphor.", ">\n\nHow is it guilt?" ]
Someone please make a Chinese version of "99 Luftballons"	[]
> This person got it started.	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"" ]
> Can somebody inform me what a balloon can do that a spy satellite can’t?	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"", ">\n\nThis person got it started." ]
> Probably airborne sensors. This thing is the size of three buses w/ a sizable observation bay. Deep ground penetrating radar from space has limits due to high orbit and the transition from space to atmosphere. Something that big probably can emit strong enough radar burst to get good look at deep underground military installations . Also just testing our response time and where our fighters would take off to intercept said balloon for North American defense.	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"", ">\n\nThis person got it started.", ">\n\nCan somebody inform me what a balloon can do that a spy satellite can’t?" ]
> F-22’s were specifically scrambled to observe the balloon because they have the highest service ceiling (65,000 feet) of any of our fighter jets. So that spy balloon must be way the fuck up there. I think this incident was more about testing the capability of our fighter aircraft. No doubt it was keeping record of how fast NORAD reacts and how quickly a jet would be in the sky and within range to intercept/observe it.	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"", ">\n\nThis person got it started.", ">\n\nCan somebody inform me what a balloon can do that a spy satellite can’t?", ">\n\nProbably airborne sensors. This thing is the size of three buses w/ a sizable observation bay. Deep ground penetrating radar from space has limits due to high orbit and the transition from space to atmosphere. Something that big probably can emit strong enough radar burst to get good look at deep underground military installations . Also just testing our response time and where our fighters would take off to intercept said balloon for North American defense." ]
> I heard, mother fucker had like, 30 god damn balloons	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"", ">\n\nThis person got it started.", ">\n\nCan somebody inform me what a balloon can do that a spy satellite can’t?", ">\n\nProbably airborne sensors. This thing is the size of three buses w/ a sizable observation bay. Deep ground penetrating radar from space has limits due to high orbit and the transition from space to atmosphere. Something that big probably can emit strong enough radar burst to get good look at deep underground military installations . Also just testing our response time and where our fighters would take off to intercept said balloon for North American defense.", ">\n\nF-22’s were specifically scrambled to observe the balloon because they have the highest service ceiling (65,000 feet) of any of our fighter jets. So that spy balloon must be way the fuck up there. I think this incident was more about testing the capability of our fighter aircraft. No doubt it was keeping record of how fast NORAD reacts and how quickly a jet would be in the sky and within range to intercept/observe it." ]
> He’ll kick you apart. He’ll kick you apart! ooo.	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"", ">\n\nThis person got it started.", ">\n\nCan somebody inform me what a balloon can do that a spy satellite can’t?", ">\n\nProbably airborne sensors. This thing is the size of three buses w/ a sizable observation bay. Deep ground penetrating radar from space has limits due to high orbit and the transition from space to atmosphere. Something that big probably can emit strong enough radar burst to get good look at deep underground military installations . Also just testing our response time and where our fighters would take off to intercept said balloon for North American defense.", ">\n\nF-22’s were specifically scrambled to observe the balloon because they have the highest service ceiling (65,000 feet) of any of our fighter jets. So that spy balloon must be way the fuck up there. I think this incident was more about testing the capability of our fighter aircraft. No doubt it was keeping record of how fast NORAD reacts and how quickly a jet would be in the sky and within range to intercept/observe it.", ">\n\nI heard, mother fucker had like, 30 god damn balloons" ]
> He'll save children, but not the British children	[ "Someone please make a Chinese version of \"99 Luftballons\"", ">\n\nThis person got it started.", ">\n\nCan somebody inform me what a balloon can do that a spy satellite can’t?", ">\n\nProbably airborne sensors. This thing is the size of three buses w/ a sizable observation bay. Deep ground penetrating radar from space has limits due to high orbit and the transition from space to atmosphere. Something that big probably can emit strong enough radar burst to get good look at deep underground military installations . Also just testing our response time and where our fighters would take off to intercept said balloon for North American defense.", ">\n\nF-22’s were specifically scrambled to observe the balloon because they have the highest service ceiling (65,000 feet) of any of our fighter jets. So that spy balloon must be way the fuck up there. I think this incident was more about testing the capability of our fighter aircraft. No doubt it was keeping record of how fast NORAD reacts and how quickly a jet would be in the sky and within range to intercept/observe it.", ">\n\nI heard, mother fucker had like, 30 god damn balloons", ">\n\nHe’ll kick you apart. He’ll kick you apart! ooo." ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.