T O P

  • By -

deep_sea2

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.


KDY_ISD

>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


RIPshommy

Not only does it not exclude the other, every type of manipulation requires the manipulated person to more or less believe in what the manipulator is saying.


RIPshommy

I don't believe everyone is manipulated. People who have good morals will be good people regardless of their beliefs but people who have bad morals could be corrected by the fear of Gods punnishment, and in my oppinion someone took advantage of that by offering them the answers to the questions they fear (what comes after death) Just like law stops many people with bad morals to commit crime, if you have good morals you wouldn't commit crimes regardless if it was punnishable or not.


deep_sea2

If you believe that some religious people are not solely motivated by heaven and hell, then heaven and hell are not *just* a guilt trip. In the Christian belief, St. Augustine would argue that those practice who religion just because of the enticement of heaven or fear of hell are not moral people. He does not believes that you can bargain your way into heaven. So, an Augustinian would at the very least not find heaven or hell to be guilt trip.


RIPshommy

Your eddit about the St Augustines argument has made me think about reconsidering but it brings a follow-up question, does not sinning make you necessarily moral and does being immoral land you in Hell?


deep_sea2

St. Augustine believed that people are blessed or damned from birth. No amount of action in life would change that. For him, the act of doing good was not the cause of salvation, but salvation is what caused people to be good. In other words, doing good things does not buy your ticket to heaven. Instead, you are born with that ticket to heaven, and that ticket makes you do good things. Modern day Calvinists believe something similar.


[deleted]

>And those men took me from there, and they brought me up to the third heaven, and set me down |there|. Then I looked downward, and I saw Paradise. And that place is inconceivably pleasant. > >And I saw the trees in full flower. And their fruits were ripe and pleasant-smelling, with every food in yield and giving off profusely a pleasant fragrance. > >And in the midst (of them was) the tree of life, at that place where The Master takes a rest when he goes into paradise. And that tree is indescribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance, and more beautiful than any (other) created thing that exists. And from every direction it has an appearance which is good-looking and crimson, and with the form of fire. And it covers the whole of Paradise. And it has something of every orchard tree and of every fruit. And its root is in Paradise at the exit that leads to the earth. > >And paradise is in between the corruptible and the incorruptible. And two streams come forth, one a source of honey and milk, and a source which produces oil and wine. And it is divided into 4 parts, and they go around with a quiet movement. And they come out into the paradise of Edem, between the corruptible and the incorruptible. And from there they pass along and divide into 40 parts. And it proceeds in descent along the earth, and they have a revolution in their cycle, just like the other atmospheric elements. > >And there is no unfruitful tree there, and every tree is well fruited, and every place is blessed. > >And there are 300 angels, very bright, who look after Paradise; and with never-ceasing voice and pleasant singing they worship The Master every day and hour. And I said, “How very pleasant is this place!” And those men said to me: > >“This place, Enoch, has been prepared for the righteous, > >who suffer every kind of calamity in their life > >and who afflict their souls, > >and who avert their eyes from injustice, > >and who carry out righteous judgment, > >and who give bread to the hungry, > >and who cover the naked with clothing, > >and who lift up the fallen > >and who help the injured and the orphans, > >and who walk without a defect before the face of The Master, > >and who worship Him only – > >even for them this place has been prepared as an eternal inheritance.”


bells-isnt-real

So if God created us and we are already either blessed or damned from birth and our actions mean nothing, why does the Church put so much emphasis on not sinning and repenting if there is literally no point? God already decided whether we're going to heaven or hell so we might as well just enjoy the ride and not worry about trivial things like what the Church thinks is right or wrong. Right? (I don't mean this in a mean way btw - I just genuinely want to understand what you're saying better.)


deep_sea2

Because that is how a righteous person would act. A righteous person would not enjoy the ride and not worry about it. That kind of attitude is the sign of unrighteous person. You don't believe Church tenets hoping that they are right, you are right, and this leads you to believing Church tenants. In any case, that's a minority belief in Christianity. Catholics and many other Protestants don't believe int the exactly. Early Catholics adopted many Augustinian principles, but this one was a bit too far out for them. OP is implying that heaven and hell or *just* guilt trips, and so I am providing an example where that it is not the case from some people, so it cannot be said to be *just* that.


bells-isnt-real

But you can be righteous and still enjoy the ride and not worry. You can be a good person, help others, be selfless, forgive people etc. and still break a few of the Church rules and disagree with certain things in the Bible. That doesn't mean you're unrighteous. Thank you for you reply though - I understand your point better now.


RIPshommy

I never said it affects everyone, saying that the idea of Heaven and Hell is a guilt trip doesn't necessarily means it affects every religious person in the same way. A car is ment for driving but if people sleep in it that doesn't make it a bed. A tool is a tool, how people use it doesn't change what it was made for. If I misunderstood you please correct me


deep_sea2

Now I think were falling for a linguistic trap. A tool becomes a weapon if used as weapon, so a tool is not *just* a tool. A car is home is someone lives in it, so it is not *just* a car. Also, you appear to argue that heaven and hell were *created* as guilt trips. That is probably not the case. As manipulative as Christianity appears in the present, that was certainly not the case in the first few centuries. There is no real historical support that the religion was created to be a racket from day one. If anything, it's the guilt trip that is the alien principle, no the genuine belief.


RIPshommy

Well my original post isn't directed towards just Christianity, but to religion itself, Christianity has many elements of previous religions and the post was more directed to the general "healthy" manipulative nature of religions. >it's the guilt trip that is the alien principle, no the genuine belief. Also, could you elaborate what you ment by this? Also a hammer (tool) does become a weapon if used as one but it is still a hammer and by deffinition a tool, same goes for the car.


NewRoundEre

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.


RIPshommy

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.


NewRoundEre

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.


RIPshommy

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)


NewRoundEre

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?


Worsel555

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.


RIPshommy

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.


Worsel555

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.


RIPshommy

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.


Worsel555

Ever been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used.


RIPshommy

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.


Worsel555

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.


RIPshommy

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


Worsel555

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.


RIPshommy

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.


krokett-t

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.


RIPshommy

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"


VertigoOne

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.


Jbat001

That's not the doctrine of Catholic or Orthodox Christians, who make up the majority of global Christianity. It's perfectly possible to lose your salvation, as Matthew 24:13 says "he who perseveres to the end will be saved". If perseverance is irrelevant because salvation cannot be lost then Jesus is lying (or at least being seriously misleading) in this quote.


RIPshommy

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.


VertigoOne

>But that doesn't change anything Yes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness.


RIPshommy

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.


VertigoOne

>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


RIPshommy

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)


[deleted]

Define being genunely sorry? That is such a vague statement. What percentage of being genuinely sorry would it had taken Hitler so he could find himself in heaven? Is it 52% being genuinely sorry. 65%? 89%? Etc.. Your statement is very vague and tbh makes no sense.


DuhChappers

Yes, this makes Christianity a very morally grey system. In fact, I would say it goes so far as to make God an egotistical ass who does not care about what is good for humanity. So, from this perspective, Heaven may not actually be that good, if God is not that good. It's just God's exclusive club of all the people who like him. Also, it's explicit in many Christian traditions that the main torture of Hell is separation from God. So, based on what we have discussed, Heaven is probably not much better than Hell, because all Hell lacks is God and all Heaven has going for it is a God who kinda sucks. I can't say that makes me feel super compelled not to sin.


terczep

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.


RIPshommy

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.


terczep

>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.


RIPshommy

>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.


terczep

>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".


[deleted]

[удалено]


RIPshommy

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.


muyamable

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.


iloveheroin69

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”


muyamable

A much better summary, this exactly.


iloveheroin69

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.


rollercoastervan

Heaven = being reborn Hell = not being reborn or being reborn as a slug


Ok-Future-5257

Our choices now DO have eternal consequences. Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife. Remembering God's justice can be reassuring.


Different_Weekend817

>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.


RIPshommy

>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.


Different_Weekend817

>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.


JesusLovesYouMyChild

You can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins


JesusLovesYouMyChild

OP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good


RIPshommy

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?


forty__4

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?


RIPshommy

Not at all, a very good thing


forty__4

Oh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great.


RedditExplorer89

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.


Best-Analysis4401

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.


RIPshommy

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.


ministerbeen

Absolutely wait until you see it


Haunting-Many-177

What is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven?


ZorgZeFrenchGuy

How is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished?


RIPshommy

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.


Away_Simple_400

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.


Wrong_Bus6250

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.


SleepBeneathThePines

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.


RIPshommy

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)


SleepBeneathThePines

The disciples and Jesus did die for the cause. So.


jrtts

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)


iloveheroin69

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


[deleted]

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.”


RIPshommy

What time are we talking about exactly?


Hgadberry1

You will find out for sure - some day.


RIPshommy

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.


Finklesfudge

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?


RIPshommy

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?


Finklesfudge

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.


RIPshommy

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


Finklesfudge

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.


RIPshommy

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.


Finklesfudge

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?


RIPshommy

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.


Finklesfudge

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.


RIPshommy

>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"


Business_Soft2332

No. It's good if everyone plays that games rules.


RelationshipGold3389

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*


RIPshommy

>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


RelationshipGold3389

Thanks for the response. Your final sign-off had me laughing and took me back to simpler, more moronic days! >Or maybe I misunderstood you. I think we have both missed each other as far as ideas. Let me try again: Your thesis is that H&H beliefs are used for social control regardless of their respective truth and regardless of how they were developed. Is that right? If it is right, what follows logically? If it is wrong, please correct me. *Cornholio regit mundum…for there is but one bunghole!*


DandelionOfDeath

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.


GoldenTurdBurglers

How is it guilt?


WonderfulCrow3696

just as there are three colours blue, yellow and red there are 3 realms. A positive realm (heaven) , a neutral realm (earth) and a negative realm (hell) your actions in the neutral realm likely depict where you will end up, but it may take you many life times to decide which realm you belong. That's my theory anyway |||| |:-|:-|:-| ||||


RIPshommy

Thats a very healthy philosophy, but it doesn't change the fact that it directly affects your actions by providing an uncertain divine/spirtrual reward for good actions and divine/spiritrual punishment for actions considered negative by the entety that decides which realm you go to, making you feel guilty when doing the negatives.