If gods did not offer everlasting life, would they still be worshiped?

[Elind]

At least in regard to the main gods of Christianity, Islam and the Jews, would the religions be able to survive without the promise of life after death; and a magnificent life at that?

[Wolfman]

There are religions such as the Buddhist and Hindu faiths that still exist today; not to mention all sorts of animist and nature-worship religions; they don't offer eternal life, yet are still practiced, and quite popular in some parts of the world.

As to whether these particular religions would be as popular or as influential today, if they hadn't taught a belief in eternal life...well, I'd have to ask the same question if you changed any of their core beliefs. Was it because of a specific part of their belief system that they became popular? Or was it more of a "right place, right time" thing.

Given the fact that a wide range of religions, with very diverse beliefs, have all managed to become popular, and last for thousands of years, I don't really think you can tie it to anything like a belief in eternal life. I'd really tend to think its more of a 'right place, right time' thing...combined sometimes with a particularly charismatic leader to kick things off.

[The True Scotsman]

Off the top of my head, I can think of three major philosophical questions that most, if not all, religions provide "answers" to:

1) What is morally right and wrong?
2) What should I do with my life?
3) What happens to me after I die?

Providing a less favorable answer to question 3 (which would be that you stop existing), while it would certainly hurt the prospects of gaining converts (in my opinion), it would still provide an answer to question 3 and, if we may assume, would also provide answers to questions 1 and 2.

[Foster Zygote]

Many, if not most, gods did not offer eternal life.

[lionking]

Wolfman beat me to it. Buddhists would think eternal life absurd.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Elind

At least in regard to the main gods of Christianity, Islam and the Jews, would the religions be able to survive without the promise of life after death; and a magnificent life at that?

Sure, because it is all about indoctrination, it is not about rewards and threats.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by The True Scotsman

Off the top of my head, I can think of three major philosophical questions that most, if not all, religions provide "answers" to:

1) What is morally right and wrong?
2) What should I do with my life?
3) What happens to me after I die?

Providing a less favorable answer to question 3 (which would be that you stop existing), while it would certainly hurt the prospects of gaining converts (in my opinion), it would still provide an answer to question 3 and, if we may assume, would also provide answers to questions 1 and 2.

Well, I'd have some contention with that. The ancient Greek and Roman religions, for example, had numerous different gods. The 'demands' of each god were often quite different, and there certainly was no central 'moral' system.

More importantly, perhaps, is that in those religions, gods were considered fallible, and questioning or challenging them was perfectly acceptable. In fact, many of the greatest human figures in Greek and Roman mythology were humans who challenged the gods, and won (or lost, but were considered heroic for making the effort).

And I don't know of any belief system -- theist or atheist -- that doesn't attempt to explain "what happens after we die". Atheists generally just say that after we die, we cease to exist. This can hardly be considered as a trait unique to theistic beliefs; it is pretty much universal, regardless of one's belief, or lack of belief, in a god.

[rocketdodger]

A better question is whether most religions would be as virulent a meme if they didn't offer everlasting life. I say no, they would not. But most of them would still be a virulent meme nonetheless due to what Ginger said -- indoctrination.

And don't fool yourself, hinduism and buddhism offer a form of everlasting life.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

A better question is whether most religions would be as virulent a meme if they didn't offer everlasting life. I say no, they would not. But most of them would still be a virulent meme nonetheless due to what Ginger said -- indoctrination.

And don't fool yourself, hinduism and buddhism offer a form of everlasting life.

A great many Buddhists -- including a number that I know personally -- believe in achieving a state of non-existence. Which, so far as I can tell, is little different from the atheist belief that once dead, we cease to exist.

And to get pedantic...there are atheists who believe in reincarnation (they just don't believe in any god or supernatural realm, they see it as a 'natural' process).

[Halfcentaur]

I am an atheist that finds some comfort in the idea that I come from matter that's been a part of countless states in the past, and will be a part of countless other states. My self and identity will be gone, but it offers a bit of romance to being. I don't think Buddhists are exempt from believing in a form of eternal life through reincarnation, even if the state of nirvana eventually achieved will offer a form of non being.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I don't think Buddhists are exempt from believing in a form of eternal life through reincarnation, even if the state of nirvana eventually achieved will offer a form of non being.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here...no, Buddhists aren't "exempt" from such a belief (for that matter, Christians aren't either...I know of Christians who believe in reincarnation)...

...but not all Buddhists believe it, and it is not necessary to believe it in order to be a Buddhist.

[rpri]

We can now look at the sky and realise there is no one up there, though long believed they must be, and since we could not get off the ground, physically or otherwise, we were in awe of it as ‘heaven’ or the abode of the ancestors or whatever. We understand, for example, that from seeing volcanoes the idea of an underworld and a hell where one burns arose. Yet religions still preach these things to billions of people, and it is shameful indeed that the Pope still preaches the stupid doctrine of damnation in hell for non-believers in his particular delusions! God is simply a creation of our own minds.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Elind

At least in regard to the main gods of Christianity, Islam and the Jews, would the religions be able to survive without the promise of life after death; and a magnificent life at that?

Technically, Judaism already did. Not only their religion still doesn't explicitly say whether an afterlife awaits you, and what would it really be like, but it seems that the original doctrine was that there is none whatsoever. The idea was that god rewards or punishes you _here_. (In case you wondered what the fuss in, say, Job was really about.)

The idea of at least a resurrection in the end times or some kind of realm of the dead, was an invention of these newfangled Pharisees (Rabbis) which didn't even exist until the end of the Babylonian exile. But according to others, actually getting such life after death ideas may be even much later than that, e.g., as late as the Maccabees.

The doctrine of the Sadducee faction -- you know, the actual _priests_ -- was still that when you die, it's that's it. Game over. You're just dead. Down in the ground with dirt on your head. Ceased to be.

And they stuck to that to the bitter end.

You can see it still being the case by the time some muppet wrote the Acts piece of fiction, in the part where Paul plays his accusers against each other by claiming he's tried for believing in resurrection. The Pharisees take it as saying that he believes in their doctrine (which was actually a whole other thing than what Paul was preaching) and take his side against the Sadducees. (Obviously that muppet knew the zone and religion better than the muppets who wrote the gospels.)

At any rate, I'd say it survived about three thousand years, give or take, without needing to harp majorly on the afterlife, and a good chunk of that while telling people flat out that there is none.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I suspect that the whole focus on the spiritual / afterlife part of religions has become more prominent as our technology increased.
It's all nice and well to claim that god / the spirits have healed someone or helped someone far away when you cannot get there and most maps still had 'here be dragons' painted upon them.
But since the advent of modern communications and better record keeping its become clear that no religion is actually able to affect the material world. Prayers studies have shown that there is no effect, noone has been miraculously healed from missing limbs or blindness by any means and so on.
So in order to keep their worshippers you'd have to focus on things that cannot be proven (or disproven) that will give their rewards 'later'.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

A better question is whether most religions would be as virulent a meme if they didn't offer everlasting life. I say no, they would not. But most of them would still be a virulent meme nonetheless due to what Ginger said -- indoctrination.

And don't fool yourself, hinduism and buddhism offer a form of everlasting life.

Some schools of buddhism do, some don't.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Many, if not most, gods did not offer eternal life.

I don't know them all, but the main religions I know of did offer life after death and I believe all that they practiced was pointed to that end.

The Norse gods did. The ancient Egyptian gods did. The Chinese gods did (like the terracotta army site). American Indians did. Many ancient burials with unknown gods show signs of burial with objects of use, to be taken along.

As to Buddhists, I do believe Buddha is not considered a god in the common sense (although some may treat him as such). It is the example of Buddha that is followed, not a god called Buddha.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

A great many Buddhists -- including a number that I know personally -- believe in achieving a state of non-existence. Which, so far as I can tell, is little different from the atheist belief that once dead, we cease to exist.

you should ask them, I am pretty sure that state is different from ceasing to exist

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Elind

At least in regard to the main gods of Christianity, Islam and the Jews, would the religions be able to survive without the promise of life after death; and a magnificent life at that?

Well, given that the Jewish God does not offer a promise of life after death, and the religion has managed to survive for several thousand years,... the answer would seem, trivially, to be "yes."

[Elind]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, given that the Jewish God does not offer a promise of life after death, and the religion has managed to survive for several thousand years,... the answer would seem, trivially, to be "yes."

I plead ignorance in that case, because I have always assumed that Jews took the basics of the old testament to heart, and does that not talk of heaven and hell, let alone Jesus, who was a Jew as I understood it?

What do Jews believe happens when they die?

And why do the ultra orthodox think their life should be spend doing nothing, at the expense of others, except pray and study? I always imagined, that they had a reason of some sort of reward for doing so.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, the OT doesn't say anything about what happens after you die. And it certainly doesn't go on about heaven and hell.

And as I already wrote once, in "Jesus's time" (using that phrase very loosely, as I don't really believe in a "historical Jesus") it was still one of the major interpretations that you just stay dead. That's it. Curtain fell. Game over.

Even the Pharisees more or less believed you stay dead until the messianic age, when everyone will be resurrected and live on Earth happily ever after.

Christianity came and basically tacked a whole new idea onto it, and it wasn't entirely without problems for the early Christians either. E.g., one of the early-ish doctrines was that when Jesus died, Got took back the flaming sword that he had placed at the entrance of his garden, so now people can go there when they die. I'm only mentioning that because it shows that to some people it was clear that they're going from a situation where dead people stay dead, to one where they don't, so _something_ must have changed.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Elind

I plead ignorance in that case, because I have always assumed that Jews took the basics of the old testament to heart, and does that not talk of heaven and hell, let alone Jesus, who was a Jew as I understood it?

It talks of heaven, but more or less only as a place where God and his angels live, not as where people go when they die. Like Olympus in that regard.

Quote:

What do Jews believe happens when they die?

Um, they are buried, people wail over their coffins, but hopefully the world is a better place as a result of what they did while alive.

Quote:

And why do the ultra orthodox think their life should be spend doing nothing, at the expense of others, except pray and study?

I'm not completely sure that's a correct characterization of what the ultra-orthodox think. But the reason the Orthodox live as they do is because they believe that that's how God wants them to live.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Even the Pharisees more or less believed you stay dead until the messianic age, when everyone will be resurrected and live on Earth happily ever after.

How does that differ from a belief in a life after death?

[Elind]

Originally Posted by drkitten

It talks of heaven, but more or less only as a place where God and his angels live, not as where people go when they die. Like Olympus in that regard.

Interesting. I was not aware of that. Although given that people, some, lived for hundreds of years in that time, they saw life as either being heaven or hell, depending on God's frame of mind.

Quote:

Um, they are buried, people wail over their coffins, but hopefully the world is a better place as a result of what they did while alive.

So, they pray for what then? Moral support?

Quote:

I'm not completely sure that's a correct characterization of what the ultra-orthodox think. But the reason the Orthodox live as they do is because they believe that that's how God wants them to live.

To be honest, I think it makes a lot more sense to pray and worship in the hope for a better afterlife, than just doing so to please a god who does nothing of substance for them, that they couldn't achieve on their own.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Elind

So, they pray for what then? Moral support?

Well, if you look at the Jewish funerary prayer (the Kaddish), it's not a prayer for the dead at all. It's a glorification of God and a petitionary prayer for the benefit of the entire Jewish community. Basically, you say prayers at a funeral to prove to God that you love and respect Him so much that you will still obey Him even in a time of deep personal trouble like the loss of a loved one.

Quote:

To be honest, I think it makes a lot more sense to pray and worship in the hope for a better afterlife, than just doing so to please a god who does nothing of substance for them.

Well, you're making the rather silly assumption here that God can't intervene in this world. Most Orthodox Jews -- indeed, most Abrahamic believers -- would reject that. Even the Christian Lord's Prayer asks for God to "give us this day our daily bread." You may find it non-miraculous that you have a job that allows you to buy food and shelter. A few months of unemployment might change your mind on that.

Even as a card-carrying agnostic, I still can't help feeling "there but for the grace of God go I" every time I meet an unemployed academic or non-tenured gypsy faculty working five classes a term at three different schools.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Elind

How does that differ from a belief in a life after death?

I was responding to the part where you said it goes on about heaven and hell. No, it doesn't. Even the sect which believed in an afterlife, didn't believe in one even similar to the Christian heaven and hell.

But at any rate, that was a minority new sect at the time, and certainly not the view of Judaism as a whole.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by Elind

So, they pray for what then? Moral support?

Basically, yes. Here is the translation of Jewish prayer for the dead:

Originally Posted by kaddish

May the great Name of God be exalted and sanctified, throughout the world, which he has created according to his will. May his Kingship be established in your lifetime and in your days, and in the lifetime of the entire household of Israel, swiftly and in the near future; and say, Amen.

May his great name be blessed, forever and ever.

Blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, extolled, honored elevated and lauded be the Name of the holy one, Blessed is he above and beyond any blessings and hymns, Praises and consolations which are uttered in the world; and say Amen. May there be abundant peace from Heaven, and life, upon us and upon all Israel; and say, Amen.

The person who actually died is not even mentioned.

Quote:

To be honest, I think it makes a lot more sense to pray and worship in the hope for a better afterlife, than just doing so to please a god who does nothing of substance for them, that they couldn't achieve on their own.

I had read some Orthodox Jewish literature, and they are quite explicit about it -- prayer and worship make their life meaningful and full here and now. Here is a quote (from a hypothetical dialogue in an Orthodox book):

Quote:

"The rabbi was wrapped in Torah and burned alive, while a scoundrel survived. Where is justice?"
"Ah, but a single hour in the former's life was richer and happier then a hundred years of the latter. The rabbi lived spiritually in highest planes, content all his life in the glory of God, while the scoundrel always chased after something, never satisfied."

Much of the book is in the same vein, goes on about how worshipping god makes one content and happy in a way nothing else can. Absolutely nowhere is any mention of afterlife.

Curiously, the author is not only a rabbi but also a Ph.D. in physics and works as a professor -- but goes out of his way to point out that physics is nothing but trade to him, and his real identity and source of all meaning in life comes from worship. He is also a Young-Earth Creationist.

[HansMustermann]

You also have to understand that the main deal God struck with the Hebrews back then, wasn't even as much about giving them a daily bread. More or less he just promised to let them live in Canaan, if they basically brown nose him copiously and agree to get kicked in the pants mightily each time he gets pissed off at them for whatever reason. (Not a literal reading, mind you)

While there seems to have been an expectation that he would also kinda rule the place and dish out rewards and punishments justly -- that's basically the doctrine that gets refuted in Job -- and there seem to be "precedent" of him doing so at some point or another, technically he didn't even promise that. He just promised to give them a place to stay, if they're good and are his new special friends. (You know, in the sense from Animaniacs, where they proclaim someone their new special friend and proceed to do all sorts of cruel and mean things to him until he break down.) Anything else is basically extra, if you really get on his good side, and if he doesn't happen to have a frat-boy bet with "the accuser" (Satan) about what kind of cruel trick would break you. (See Job again.)

He doesn't even seem to have much of an obligation to actually help defend or conquer the place he promised. Indeed in at least one place he buggers off in the middle of a campaign he personally ordered, for a reason as silly as that the enemy has iron chariots. Or he's all pleased with the Jews when they pull the coup where they killed Jezebel and the followers of Ba'al, and make enemies in the process of every country around them, including former long time allies... but obviously not pleased enough to actually help them defend the place a couple of years later when the Assyrians blitz through the lands, now lacking the protection of those former allies. Etc.

Personally I'd say those guys got royally shafted in that deal, and should have read the fine print first

[tsig]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, given that the Jewish God does not offer a promise of life after death, and the religion has managed to survive for several thousand years,... the answer would seem, trivially, to be "yes."

A quick google shows:

Gan Eden: Heaven

In Judaism, the eternal destination for the righteous is Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden). It is generally described as a place of great joy and peace. Talmudic imagery includes: sitting at golden banquet tables



http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism.../afterlife.htm


So it looks like Jews do believe in an afterlife.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by tsig

A quick google shows:

Gan Eden: Heaven

In Judaism, the eternal destination for the righteous is Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden). It is generally described as a place of great joy and peace. Talmudic imagery includes: sitting at golden banquet tables



http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism.../afterlife.htm


So it looks like Jews do believe in an afterlife.

Wow. Way to quote out of context. They start with six paragraphs about how mainstream Judaism doesn't incorporate any sort of belief in an afterlife, but that there are a few splinter groups that have written a little bit about it.....

And you take that little bit as representing all "Jews."

Let me give you a more relevant set of quotes from the article.

Quote:

Jewish sacred texts and literature have little to say about what happens after death. This may seem surprising to non-Jews, since the sacred texts of Christianity and Islam (both of which have their foundations in Judaism) elaborate rather fully about the afterlife.

But Judaism is much more focused on actions than beliefs, so it is actually to be expected that its prophets and sages have not spent as much time on speculations about the world to come as elaborations on the mitzvot to be performed in this life.

The Torah and Talmud alike focus on the purpose of earthly life, which is to fulfill one's duties to God and one's fellow man. Succeeding at this brings reward, failing at it brings punishment. Whether rewards and punishments continue after death, or whether anything at all happens after death, is not as important.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by tsig

Talmudic imagery includes: sitting at golden banquet tables

Key word is "Talmudic". It postdates the Torah, as your link explains.

Quote:

So it looks like Jews do believe in an afterlife.

Some Jews. Historically, only a minority.

So to return to OP -- the answer is, promise of eternal life is not necessary to continue worship.

[Elind]

Many interesting things revealed here. The nuances of religions are almost something to miss in atheism.

Just kidding.

However these comments make me wonder if a belief in the afterlife, and corresponding behavior adjustment is not fundamentally more admirable than the alternative of belief in a watching god, and no afterlife.

After all, the former allows for the possibility that there is no manipulative finger from heaven leaving free will intact, in principle, whereas the latter suggests that the only reason for prayer and the like is either a craving for love that can't be found elsewhere, or a belief that nothing in life is within human (or nature's) control alone.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Personally I'd say those guys got royally shafted in that deal, and should have read the fine print first

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Elind

Many interesting things revealed here. The nuances of religions are almost something to miss in atheism.

Just kidding.

However these comments make me wonder if a belief in the afterlife, and corresponding behavior adjustment is not fundamentally more admirable than the alternative of belief in a watching god, and no afterlife.

After all, the former allows for the possibility that there is no manipulative finger from heaven leaving free will intact, in principle, whereas the latter suggests that the only reason for prayer and the like is either a craving for love that can't be found elsewhere, or a belief that nothing in life is within human (or nature's) control alone.

1. I wouldn't go that far in either direction.

The former still routinely believe in divine intervention anyway. And in fact, the former routinely deny that you have anything in your control alone. E.g., by the Catholic doctrine crediting your own hard word for your success instead of crediting God makes you guilty of the most grievous of the deadly sins, the sin of Pride. Even crediting yourself with being more pious or otherwise, you know, deserving that divine intervention, is still Pride. And we're not talking just "sin" as in "god will be a tad disappointed and lecture you when you show up", but "deadly sin" as in basically "god ain't talking to you any more and you'll burn in hell if a priest doesn't get you off the hook." It's the kind of sin you can't even shake off on your own, no matter how much you repent or pray. By contrast the OT is full of people saying basically "God gave me this because I _deserved_ it", so...

I think plenty of adherents to the latter still believe that there are plenty of things they can do on their own. As I was saying, technically God didn't even promise them a daily bread. The OT is very heavy on the stick and very lacking in the carrot department. It's a god that's more into dispensive collective kicks in the pants than in actually helping. So it's not hard to get the idea that you better work hard for the stuff you need, 'cause relying on God has a spotty track record at best.

2. Believing in a nicer fairy tale is still as silly as believing in a nastier fairy tale. If I pray to Snow White (I'm a Seven Dwarf Adventist, see?) does it matter if it's the nicer Disney version or one of the earlier and nastier medieval versions? It's still taking a fairy tale too seriously either way.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Wow. Way to quote out of context. They start with six paragraphs about how mainstream Judaism doesn't incorporate any sort of belief in an afterlife, but that there are a few splinter groups that have written a little bit about it.....

And you take that little bit as representing all "Jews."

Let me give you a more relevant set of quotes from the article.

Actually, you seem to be quoting out of context too. Here is what I found in this article:

Quote:

Today, most traditional Jewish movements accept the concept of the resurrection of the dead. A notable exception is Reform Judaism, which official rejects the doctrine.

...

Traditional Judaism includes belief in both heaven and hell, as we will see below. How is one's destination decided? The School of Shammai offered this description:

Whether that is right or wrong, I don't know, but it seems unfair to accuse him of quoting out of context when he is perhaps representing the article better than you are.

All the same it is true that the Jews worshipped God for centuries with no concept of an afterlife. The idea of the afterlife does creep into Judaism, in Daniel and Ezekiel for example.

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

I suspect that the whole focus on the spiritual / afterlife part of religions has become more prominent as our technology increased. <snipped>

Not exactly. The part about stuff you can't verify is true, but technology isn't the major factor here.

Other religions are.

The original jewish faith, as noted above, had nothing to do with heaven, hell or after life in the christian sense. It was a rather materialistic religion, you get rewarded or punished based on your actions (or your forefathers).

It is only after the jews came back from exile that notions of afterlife began to rise. There are several reasons for that:
1)The jews in exile were much closer to the east such as persia and india where notions of reincarnations and such were more common
2)The jews once returned were under the greek and roman authorship which were very tempting to lead the jews away from their faith. As of such, the people in power needed to try and threaten \ bribe people to stay with the faith and so an afterlife was invented.

It's no big surprise that all of this afterlife stuff came around that time.

Originally Posted by Elind

I plead ignorance in that case, because I have always assumed that Jews took the basics of the old testament to heart, and does that not talk of heaven and hell, let alone Jesus, who was a Jew as I understood it?

Umm.... What? The bible speaks of Jesus?!?
You think jews have Jesus in their book and they're not christian why?

The supposed prophecies of Jesus in the bible are either self fullfilling (I.E I know they said something about a guy with a white donkey so I'll go and get one) or a bunch of vague or mistranslated nonesense like the whole issue with "virgin" giving birth.

Heaven is clearly an earthly place. Read Genesis 2. It was a place that was not only earthly, but was visible to the audience at the time with a specific location here.

Hell is not mentioned. There is "sheol" in the OT, which is basically the underworld. When you die you go to sleep. That's preety much it. When Samuel is "brought back" by Saul, he asks why was he awakened.

Moreover, there is no afterlife what so ever, read Ecclesiastes 9.

Originally Posted by Elind

What do Jews believe happens when they die?

That's like asking what do christians think happens when you die.
Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, Luthorans etc all have different notions on that. In fact, even in the same denominations you'll have some differences.

Jews are likewise the same.
There are certain sects that continue the original notion of no afterlife what so ever. Other factions have a belief in an after life, some factions have notions of reincarnations.

Religion isn't based on verifiable facts, it's simply the daily trend that people follow. It's more like a fashion sense than a logical process.

Originally Posted by Elind

And why do the ultra orthodox think their life should be spend doing nothing, at the expense of others, except pray and study? I always imagined, that they had a reason of some sort of reward for doing so.

Because nobody asks them. The OT god works in a very simple manner:
"Do as I say or thou shall be smited".

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by lionking

Wolfman beat me to it. Buddhists would think eternal life absurd.

I thought Buddists believed in transmigration of the soull and how you ended up in the next incarnation depended on how you acted in this one?

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I thought Buddists believed in transmigration of the soull and how you ended up in the next incarnation depended on how you acted in this one?

Isn't that hinduism?

[HansMustermann]

Well, technically. In Buddhism it's your "non-soul" that gets reincarnated

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, if you look at the Jewish funerary prayer (the Kaddish), it's not a prayer for the dead at all. It's a glorification of God and a petitionary prayer for the benefit of the entire Jewish community. Basically, you say prayers at a funeral to prove to God that you love and respect Him so much that you will still obey Him even in a time of deep personal trouble like the loss of a loved one.

"We know you swatted one of us, to his eternal death. You're still a swell guy and please delay swatting the rest of us as much as possible!"

Hmmm. No wonder Christianity exploded when it added the simple sub-meme of God'll bring ya back to life.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Beerina

"We know you swatted one of us, to his eternal death. You're still a swell guy and please delay swatting the rest of us as much as possible!"

Hmmm. No wonder Christianity exploded when it added the simple sub-meme of God'll bring ya back to life.

Dunno, I don't think one can really "combine" it like that. The implication there would be that it was more popular to people who had a choice between the old and the new version, which mostly wasn't actually the case. As in, they were largely different populations.

Christianity didn't "explode" among the followers of Judaism at all. You can preach that virgin birth fulfilled that prophecy, and legging it to Egypt and back fulfilled some other prophecy, and so on, all you want. It won't convince many of those who know what those verses actually referred to and that basically that it's not a fulfilment at all.

And these newfangled Rabbis of the Pharisee sect had taken upon themselves to make sure that the people do know what's in that book of theirs. The priests had been content with doing the rituals, but the Pharisees started teaching shul. Long before Christianity, too. I guess no wonder that the gospels take such a hostile view of the Pharisees.

Christianity proved somewhat more palatable to _some_ gentiles, in that it promised the easiest route to salvation of pretty much all religions.

And it really "exploded" when the plague episodes hit, and hit hard, sometimes in epidemics that lasted 20 years or so in a freaking row. There were people who never even knew what it's like to not live in a deadly epidemic. Which also hit the economy hard, and inept measures aimed at fixing the economy actually made it even worse. Add civil wars, increasing dissatisfaction, increasingly oppressive measures aimed at fixing the mess, barbarians becoming almost unstoppable, etc, and it actually looked like the world _is_ ending. Or at least circling the drain very fast. A doomsday cult, well, you can see how that would fit right in. A doomsday cult with anti-Rome undertones, doubly so.

But even among the gentiles, outside the Roman lands and a bit of Arianism among the Goths, Christianity really didn't catch on at all.

Charlemagne got baptised more or less just in an episode of selling his soul to the devil for power and legitimacy, as the Pope promised him a claim to the whole of western Europe based on that "Donation Of Constantine" forgery. And he had to do some pretty nasty mass-murders to get the others to convert to his new religion. See the mass executions of the Saxons and the destruction of their holy places, for example.

In Russia, "Saint" Vladimir basically just sent envoys to pick him a new religion, and Orthodoxy it was as it looked like the most opulent and fitting his delusions of grandeur. Seriously, what turned his envoys to recommend it was seeing all the gold and decorations in the Hagia Sophia. And again he had to impose it at sword point on his subjects.

In other places, some king converted for basically an alliance sake, and the people did all they could to resist it. E.g., in Sweden many villages used the Christian churches to worship their old gods, because this whole new Christian stupidity was basically not what they wanted.

In other places it took stuff like the Northern Crusades, to impose Christianity at sword point, and even then it took _centuries_ of persecutions and burning people at the stake for them to gradually accept it. You'd baptise a village at sword point, and then they'd run off to their sacred groves and lakes and try to wash the baptism off.

But to return to that choice, far as I understand the Jews pretty much _don't_ have a choice. Well, nor the Christians or Muslims for that matter. Once you proclaim a religion as the only one true, well, there's no way to believe that _and_ go comparative shopping for another one you like more.

Plus, as I was saying, that OT God really goes generously with the stick and sparingly with the carrot. Trying to defect from his flock can either get you a nasty kick in the pants (see, Jonah), or he can take it out on your friends and relatives instead, and in a mass murderous way too (see, the whole Midian episode in Numbers.) It's the kind of God who literally holds your kids and your friends hostage. You can't just pole-vault over some Berlin wall to get away from him if you like something else better.