comment: >
  
  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?
context: 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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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)