AFTERLIVES ABROAD: An evaluation of major afterlife ideas

[Ask Jappleack]

I think this had put a nice amount of effort but I worry that its incomplete, for example you missed a few continents of cultures and their ideas of the afterlife.

[Fermionic]

We Are Organisms

Fermionic

Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.

That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.

Overthrow? Hardly. Jadis is the paragon of respectability.

[Masrur Fanalis]

fschmidt

You missed this one:

Exodus 20:5-6

I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers’ sin, to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing faithful love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commands.

This means that afterlife is the success of one's genes, and that good behavior is rewarded with evolutionary success and bad behavior is punished with evolutionary failure. The Old Testament is far more consistent with the ideas of evolution than modern culture is.

Where in the verse is the afterlife mentioned?

[The New Wineskin]

We Are Organisms

I think this had put a nice amount of effort but I worry that its incomplete, for example you missed a few continents of cultures and their ideas of the afterlife.

I mainly wanted to focus on major religions and their afterlife theories. If we were to discuss every cultural idea of an afterlife regardless of religion, the thread would be longer than War and Peace. Furthermore, I feel religion is largely influenced by culture: a majority Hindu population, for example, is more than likely going to have a culture that reflects that, i.e. cultural subdivisions of classes based on the religious caste system in India.

[Ask Jappleack]

The New Wineskin

We Are Organisms

I think this had put a nice amount of effort but I worry that its incomplete, for example you missed a few continents of cultures and their ideas of the afterlife.

I mainly wanted to focus on major religions and their afterlife theories. If we were to discuss every cultural idea of an afterlife regardless of religion, the thread would be longer than War and Peace. Furthermore, I feel religion is largely influenced by culture: a majority Hindu population, for example, is more than likely going to have a culture that reflects that, i.e. cultural subdivisions of classes based on the religious caste system in India.

Yes I have noticed religion and mythologies tend to do that, so i thought itd be useful to understand religions if we look at them in different points of time or societal/cultural development. I have found, perhaps with incomplete research, that societies with permanent structures tended to have Gods and heroes in their myths and had at some point done human and/or animal sacrifice, while with more nomadic or paleolithic lifestyles and less permanent structures they tended to have myths on nature. The myth I remember was of a native american tribe and their myth was that a giant beaver swallowed a pond or something then a wolf battled it and their fight made the mississipi. A huge and noteworthy difference I would think, than more modern religions, I think that is how they can be understood.

[The New Wineskin]

We Are Organisms

The New Wineskin

We Are Organisms

I think this had put a nice amount of effort but I worry that its incomplete, for example you missed a few continents of cultures and their ideas of the afterlife.

I mainly wanted to focus on major religions and their afterlife theories. If we were to discuss every cultural idea of an afterlife regardless of religion, the thread would be longer than War and Peace. Furthermore, I feel religion is largely influenced by culture: a majority Hindu population, for example, is more than likely going to have a culture that reflects that, i.e. cultural subdivisions of classes based on the religious caste system in India.

Yes I have noticed religion and mythologies tend to do that, so i thought itd be useful to understand religions if we look at them in different points of time or societal/cultural development. I have found, perhaps with incomplete research, that societies with permanent structures tended to have Gods and heroes in their myths and had at some point done human and/or animal sacrifice, while with more nomadic or paleolithic lifestyles and less permanent structures they tended to have myths on nature. The myth I remember was of a native american tribe and their myth was that a giant beaver swallowed a pond or something then a wolf battled it and their fight made the mississipi. A huge and noteworthy difference I would think, than more modern religions, I think that is how they can be understood.

I see what you're saying. I suppose it would be beneficial to not only explain the afterlife ideas, but why they may have come about where and when they did. Historically, ideas that stem from India (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.) tend to feature reincarnation (or the plausibility thereof), while European and Middle Eastern ideas (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, etc.) tend to feature permenant reward/punishment based afterlives. Eastern and Southeastern Asian religions (Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.) -- of which I just realized I completely neglected -- seem to be fairly silent or ambiguous on the matter, which is interesting. It sounds like an interesting secondary project!

That is no coincidence. Peoples who have more permanent settlements (such as the ancient Greeks and the Israelites) tended to have mythos with more complexity because they had less to worry about. They did not have to worry about food running short, or having to set up camp for the night because these things were already handled. Food surpluses and specified workers allowed for governmental and religious flourishment. From a purely historical perspective, religious ideologies tended to be more complex within settled areas: they had time to ponder questions other than that revolving around nature, and explain them creatively through heros and tales. The more nomadic, however, had their mythos revolve around nature. They worried about their food and their shelter, and so they would imagine ideas about why the earth is shaking, or why it was really cold at some times and really hot in others. As such, they focuses on natural explanations, but had no time to make it more complex. They used these natural explanations to perform favors for the gods in exchange for the things they needed. They did not focus on heros and mythos too much and focuses on nature simply because nature is what they had to worry about, while those who settled in permanent settlements had other concerns.

At least, this is the conclusion I come to.

**EDITED TO INCLUDE A RESPONSE TO THE FIRST HALF OF YOUR STATEMENT.**

[Ask Jappleack]

The New Wineskin

We Are Organisms

The New Wineskin

We Are Organisms

I think this had put a nice amount of effort but I worry that its incomplete, for example you missed a few continents of cultures and their ideas of the afterlife.

I mainly wanted to focus on major religions and their afterlife theories. If we were to discuss every cultural idea of an afterlife regardless of religion, the thread would be longer than War and Peace. Furthermore, I feel religion is largely influenced by culture: a majority Hindu population, for example, is more than likely going to have a culture that reflects that, i.e. cultural subdivisions of classes based on the religious caste system in India.

Yes I have noticed religion and mythologies tend to do that, so i thought itd be useful to understand religions if we look at them in different points of time or societal/cultural development. I have found, perhaps with incomplete research, that societies with permanent structures tended to have Gods and heroes in their myths and had at some point done human and/or animal sacrifice, while with more nomadic or paleolithic lifestyles and less permanent structures they tended to have myths on nature. The myth I remember was of a native american tribe and their myth was that a giant beaver swallowed a pond or something then a wolf battled it and their fight made the mississipi. A huge and noteworthy difference I would think, than more modern religions, I think that is how they can be understood.

I see what you're saying. I suppose it would be beneficial to not only explain the afterlife ideas, but why they may have come about where and when they did. Historically, ideas that stem from India (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.) tend to feature reincarnation (or the plausibility thereof), while European and Middle Eastern ideas (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, etc.) tend to feature permenant reward/punishment based afterlives. Eastern and Southeastern Asian religions (Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.) -- of which I just realized I completely neglected -- seem to be fairly silent or ambiguous on the matter, which is interesting. It sounds like an interesting secondary project!

That is no coincidence. Peoples who have more permanent settlements (such as the ancient Greeks and the Israelites) tended to have mythos with more complexity because they had less to worry about. They did not have to worry about food running short, or having to set up camp for the night because these things were already handled. Food surpluses and specified workers allowed for governmental and religious flourishment. From a purely historical perspective, religious ideologies tended to be more complex within settled areas: they had time to ponder questions other than that revolving around nature, and explain them creatively through heros and tales. The more nomadic, however, had their mythos revolve around nature. They worried about their food and their shelter, and so they would imagine ideas about why the earth is shaking, or why it was really cold at some times and really hot in others. As such, they focuses on natural explanations, but had no time to make it more complex. They used these natural explanations to perform favors for the gods in exchange for the things they needed. They did not focus on heros and mythos too much and focuses on nature simply because nature is what they had to worry about, while those who settled in permanent settlements had other concerns.

At least, this is the conclusion I come to.

**EDITED TO INCLUDE A RESPONSE TO THE FIRST HALF OF YOUR STATEMENT.**

They had to worry about crops, in nature they owned nature, they had more to worry about but if somehtign went wrong it would normally be minor, droughts could have been a bigger issue, so they dedicated rituals to apeasing their gods so they could have a good harvest. Actually I read somewhere about early occult practices, one thign they tried to do was get it to rain, perhaps like a rain dance, but i think it could have evolved into a ritual from more worry over the crops. A nomadic lifestyle is more tiring they didnt have time for rituals, and if they had a problem they knew how to deal with it, because they were closer to nature, and people who are dependant on society may have a harder time iif somehting fails and move to a different location/society to live with, such as the potato famine causing the irish to move. There may be more things we are overlooking but I think this is a good aproach.

[The New Wineskin]

We Are Organisms

The New Wineskin

We Are Organisms

The New Wineskin

We Are Organisms

I think this had put a nice amount of effort but I worry that its incomplete, for example you missed a few continents of cultures and their ideas of the afterlife.

I mainly wanted to focus on major religions and their afterlife theories. If we were to discuss every cultural idea of an afterlife regardless of religion, the thread would be longer than War and Peace. Furthermore, I feel religion is largely influenced by culture: a majority Hindu population, for example, is more than likely going to have a culture that reflects that, i.e. cultural subdivisions of classes based on the religious caste system in India.

Yes I have noticed religion and mythologies tend to do that, so i thought itd be useful to understand religions if we look at them in different points of time or societal/cultural development. I have found, perhaps with incomplete research, that societies with permanent structures tended to have Gods and heroes in their myths and had at some point done human and/or animal sacrifice, while with more nomadic or paleolithic lifestyles and less permanent structures they tended to have myths on nature. The myth I remember was of a native american tribe and their myth was that a giant beaver swallowed a pond or something then a wolf battled it and their fight made the mississipi. A huge and noteworthy difference I would think, than more modern religions, I think that is how they can be understood.

I see what you're saying. I suppose it would be beneficial to not only explain the afterlife ideas, but why they may have come about where and when they did. Historically, ideas that stem from India (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.) tend to feature reincarnation (or the plausibility thereof), while European and Middle Eastern ideas (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, etc.) tend to feature permenant reward/punishment based afterlives. Eastern and Southeastern Asian religions (Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.) -- of which I just realized I completely neglected -- seem to be fairly silent or ambiguous on the matter, which is interesting. It sounds like an interesting secondary project!

That is no coincidence. Peoples who have more permanent settlements (such as the ancient Greeks and the Israelites) tended to have mythos with more complexity because they had less to worry about. They did not have to worry about food running short, or having to set up camp for the night because these things were already handled. Food surpluses and specified workers allowed for governmental and religious flourishment. From a purely historical perspective, religious ideologies tended to be more complex within settled areas: they had time to ponder questions other than that revolving around nature, and explain them creatively through heros and tales. The more nomadic, however, had their mythos revolve around nature. They worried about their food and their shelter, and so they would imagine ideas about why the earth is shaking, or why it was really cold at some times and really hot in others. As such, they focuses on natural explanations, but had no time to make it more complex. They used these natural explanations to perform favors for the gods in exchange for the things they needed. They did not focus on heros and mythos too much and focuses on nature simply because nature is what they had to worry about, while those who settled in permanent settlements had other concerns.

At least, this is the conclusion I come to.

**EDITED TO INCLUDE A RESPONSE TO THE FIRST HALF OF YOUR STATEMENT.**

They had to worry about crops, in nature they owned nature, they had more to worry about but if somehtign went wrong it would normally be minor, droughts could have been a bigger issue, so they dedicated rituals to apeasing their gods so they could have a good harvest. Actually I read somewhere about early occult practices, one thign they tried to do was get it to rain, perhaps like a rain dance, but i think it could have evolved into a ritual from more worry over the crops. A nomadic lifestyle is more tiring they didnt have time for rituals, and if they had a problem they knew how to deal with it, because they were closer to nature, and people who are dependant on society may have a harder time iif somehting fails and move to a different location/society to live with, such as the potato famine causing the irish to move. There may be more things we are overlooking but I think this is a good aproach.

That is an excellent point: that point would imply that religious zealousy and complexity is directly proportional to dependency for knowledge and answers.

[JediDillon]

I do believe in Heaven as I am a Christian and that it is a place of absolute joy and peace. It has everything anyone would ever want, a place where everyone loves everyone, no hunger or disease, no jealousy, war, or anything of the like. Hell though is something I think though that is a hard concept to grasp upon. I do believe though that it is indeed a place of suffering where people are made to understand what they did wrong and why.

[The New Wineskin]

JediDillon

I do believe in Heaven as I am a Christian and that it is a place of absolute joy and peace. It has everything anyone would ever want, a place where everyone loves everyone, no hunger or disease, no jealousy, war, or anything of the like. Hell though is something I think though that is a hard concept to grasp upon. I do believe though that it is indeed a place of suffering where people are made to understand what they did wrong and why.

Is this place of suffering eternal? If so, what purpose is helping the person understand what they did wrong if they can never really apply it and better themselves? It would be like teaching a prisoner on death row who fully admits his crimes and is without a doubt guilty how to better live life outside of prison: it's a waste of time.

[The New Wineskin]

Fermionic

We Are Organisms

Fermionic

Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.

That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.

Overthrow? Hardly. Jadis is the paragon of respectability.

Jadis is an asshat.

[Fermionic]

The New Wineskin

Fermionic

We Are Organisms

Fermionic

Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.

That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.

Overthrow? Hardly. Jadis is the paragon of respectability.

Jadis is an asshat.

There's no cause to be vulgar.

[The New Wineskin]

Fermionic

The New Wineskin

Fermionic

We Are Organisms

Fermionic

Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.

That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.

Overthrow? Hardly. Jadis is the paragon of respectability.

Jadis is an asshat.

There's no cause to be vulgar.

His asshattery is very much a cause to be vulgar.

[Fermionic]

The New Wineskin

Fermionic

The New Wineskin

Fermionic

We Are Organisms

Fermionic

Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.

That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.

Overthrow? Hardly. Jadis is the paragon of respectability.

Jadis is an asshat.

There's no cause to be vulgar.

His asshattery is very much a cause to be vulgar.

That you have confused her for a male convinces me that you've little idea of what is transpiring here.