comment: >
  
  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.
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) >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Ever been to an Amish community? They are pretty good at enforcing community standards. And banishment is still used. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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" >
  
  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. >
  
  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” >
  
  A much better summary, this exactly. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  But that doesn't change anything
  
  Yes it does, because you cannot use the threat of hell against someone who is promised ongoing forgiveness. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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 >
  
  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) >
  
  Too absolute. This concept can also be put in a positive light. Aka heaven being a reward for good deeds in life. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  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". >
  
  Our choices now DO have eternal consequences.  Rewards and punishments do await us in the afterlife.  Remembering God's justice can be reassuring. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  You can sin a lot and still go to heaven if you're sorry for your sins >
  
  OP is mad that religion makes people be better morally and be good >
  
  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? >
  
  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? >
  
  Not at all, a very good thing >
  
  Oh well in that case I totally agree. I think it gives people something to aim at which is great. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Absolutely wait until you see it >
  
  What is your idea of your own personal living hell and living heaven? >
  
  How is this any different than, say, telling someone who commits a crime that he or she will go to jail or be punished? >
  
  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. >
  
  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.