carrot & stick

To date I will admit my reading on religion has been fairly limited, and mainly to the key religions, and the Gnostics (or lat least Tim Freke’s interpretation of Gnosis) so Iknow little or nothing about the more minor religions. But a thought struck me the other day and thought Id share it with you.Are there religions out there that don’t as a core concept offer some idea of life eternal? Be this in the form of an existence in a heavenly paradise, reincarnation, return to Gaia or some Universal Consciousness, bodily resurrection or some other concept that for want of a better description offers a second bite of the cherry?I can’t think of any but as I said my reading on the more diverse religions is minimal to nil.Now as the vast majority of religions (if not all) offer this carrot of eternal salvation [of one type or another], my thought was this if The vast majority of religions did not enshrine the concept of eternal salvation at the core of their belief, did not offer this carrot of hope of life eternal would religion have held sway over the world’s population to the same degree? Or put another way, without the stick of eternal damnation (an inseparable concept to the eternal salvation) would religion have had the power to control society in the way it has over human history?

to the question:How about Buddhism? Their afterlife isn't really an afterlife. It's just coming back to the world and start all over again and again and again. it does however fall in to tha catagory of continued or extra life after death. the reincarnated person wont remember the previous life but is still clearly a life after death model.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-05-2004 06:21 PM

I suppose regarding definition #4 even Atheism could be defined as a religion, though many atheists would spit feathers at that, mainly due to those other definitions which are the more readily accepted definitions of religion. (frankly I would be among them)
But in the light of Def#4 Atheism would indeed be a religion that definitely didn’t enshrine any kind of afterlife.But also in the light of #4 things like support of sporting team qualifies as religion. If you look at all the symptoms it would be not too hard to agree. Most supporters have a strong faith in the future success of their team, even if they consistently lurk at the bottom of the lowest league. Ardour is also not in question, and frequently this ardour as with more traditional religious models can lead to strong conflicts with other religious models of the same type (other teams). Now though ‘Team Support’ is ‘religious’ by def#4, as it atheism they tend not have concepts of life after death. But this is not really the point, and it would be quite a stretch to get anyone to seriously consider 'team support', even if it borders on the fanatical, to be what is traditionally considered a religion.So I guess my first question are there any religions that don’t have a concept of some king of continuation after death? should be re stated slightly.Are there any religions, that would be recognised as such by the classically accepted definition, that doesn’t include a concept of continued life or continuation in some form after death?To Phatboy: You are correct, that would be a far better statement of the question.Would people have allowed their religion to control them, in the way they did, were there no fear of death?It would have been far more simple a question to answer if it has simply remained a question of fearing for your soul upon death, but as the religions gained power they became more powerful and held onto it because as well as fearing for their soul people began to fear the mechanisms, especially the punitive, of the very structures that were offering eternal salvation. The join us or die approach.But I’m guessing that is jumping the gun a little isn’t it. Because the religions would not have gotten into that position of absolute power with out being given it in the first place. Is it safe to assume that the primary reason people turned to the religions in the first place was the salvation of their soul (or whatever) or was it something else. Or did the rot with religion set in with the big monotheist religions when they started saying my god is the only god, and only through me will you reach salvation! Go smite the unbeliever .I know the Romans had a tradition of adopting local gods and such like Sulis-Minerva (neatly combining the British god of water and the Roman one.) But I’m not sure if the Romans actively persecuted people for simply not believing in the roman pantheon but instead favouring their own. Again my lack of reading hinders me.Somehow I get the feeling that pre-monotheism, though central to society, religion didn’t have quite the same iron clad grip on society that the major monotheist religions did and to a lesser extent still do. ( can any one suggest and book that details the start of religion in mankind? I have A History of God: by Karen Armstrong but that deals with the three key monotheist religions)Has a concept of life after death always been important to religions?This message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-05-2004 06:23 PM

cool stuff, also explanies the wonderfully delicious feeling of anticipation in the queue to a new rollercoaster.

Not sure if this is the right thread to delve deeper into that as it was meant to be a discussion of what religions don’t have a concept of continued life on some form or other. And those that do, is this the primary social control (do as we say or we damn your eternal soul) and would the religions have the same level of power if people didn’t fear death and sought some kind of eternity beyond death.But I’ll happily wait the judgement of one of the admins.

That sounds very much like the Gnostic system (at least described in jesus and the goddess by Tim Freke) where we are the universal consciousness experiencing the world and itself through multiple individualities. And realising this allows you to become one with the UC and attain Gnosis .It eases there anxiety over dying because they then believe they are returning to the greater whole from which they emerged from in the first place. It teaches that loosing the sense of self is no big thing as this is just a false facade put on by the UC to experience creation (which isn’t really real in the first place)I believe this does fall into a life after death, eternal life model as the individual is taught they ARE the UC and thus can not die for they were never born. It’s just the natural conclusion of an internalised concept of god over an externalised concept.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-05-2004 07:08 PMThis message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-05-2004 07:10 PM

Interesting. Nice description.

interesting stuff. and sheds light on the processes of 'Breaking people' in terms of interigation. Also it sounds very similar to the techniquiesInteresting stuff. And sheds light on the processes of 'Breaking people' in terms of interrogation. Also it sounds very similar to the techniques used by the so called ‘satanic’ cults (more cult of personality, power trip and cover for vicious abuse than anything religious but that’s a topic for another thread) in controlling new recruits and current members. Some of the stories I’ve hared are quite horrific.