>Thoughtcrime deserves eternal punishment Why do religions do this?

>>1765377

As far as I know, Christainity is the only religion that does this. Why do you equate it with all religion?


And even with Christainity, it's not so much thoughtcrime as innate human nature deserves eternal punishment, which admittedly is probably even more fucked up.

>>1765385
Singling out Christianity is a good way to get tons of shitposters and funny hat maymays.

>>1765377
Because.
Religions are indicative of the type of civilization they come from.

Feudal nations have religions where the gods are very human in their needs and desires; this is because feudal societies have loyalty rather than legality.

The desert towns that spawned Judaism and Christianity were state religions with objective moral punishments, because they had a society of thieves, merchants and others, so they needed laws in place of loyalty.

While I consider myself a Christian, I think Christianity was the biggest instance of worldwide cuckening, because nations suddenly became capitalistic, and the values of everyone changed. People became more materialistic.

>>1765377

To snuff out rival religions or even rival schools within the same religion.

Nestorian christianity was probably (understatement...) different from modern catholicism in many ways.

But it's buried beneath the heads of husbands and the ravaged bodies of wives nowadays. The strength of the bishop of rome overtook his rivals and condemned them to eternal punishment. We even see the punishment today of ignorance. What a malicious revenge!

>>1765377
To control people. That's all there is to it.
The kind of people who will blindly believe in whatever religion is pandered to them are the kind of people who can most effectively be controlled with lies and deceit. If they won't even question the existence of this invisible, intangible deity, then why would they question anything else?
You tell them if they don't follow your constructive, societally beneficial ways, they suffer in hell. Everyone wins.

File: 1469983282074.jpg (57KB, 756x719px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 756x719px

To enforce a moral code. People will always have their innate flaws: jealousy, greed, rage and the like. However claiming that only bad people think such thoughts ensures that no-one will outwardly act on those flaws and more importantly try to suppress them.

If you create a society that tolerates its own evil then people will be more willing to commit evil acts. However a society that states that those flaws are something good people never feel they will make it a point to squash out those emotions in order to maintain the social order.

>>1765608

t. asshole with OCD

People without OCD don't need onerous prescriptions for everyday living. People without OCD don't fall for the flaw of "total security" and deal with unexpected situations with whatever smarts and intelligence nature provided.

The exception is food preperation. There are few ways to handle food in a safe manner and an infinite number of bad ways to handle food. Standardized food preparation was probably the greatest civic benefit of religions.

All utopian ideologies do this. They do this because variation is their ultimate enemy. Utopian ideologies are predicated on the idea that their vision of humanity and the world is the only right one and that all the others, by virtue of being different, are by default wrong. It would therefore make sense to subscribe the very worst punishment for the 'source' of sins, which would be our own thoughts.

Which is of course pretty inhumane and completely useless, because these very ideologies themselves don't even stay the same, but whatever

File: 1466894052347.jpg (23KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x280px

>>1765627

Wrong think has less to do with controlling everyday living and handling edge cases but more to do with enforcing all members of the in-group behave in ways that strengthen the in-group. Leniency in the core tenants of an ideology invariably lead to its own demise as more and more exceptions to the rules are created.

Hard liners demanding that only certain desires, especially those that uphold the moral code or maintain stability, are the only correct ones support the idea of having a wrong think policy.

To put it simply: For a society to function it requires any belief that threatens its stability to be removed. The west arrests the jihadi as he threatens to remove democracy and replace it with sharia, the Saudi stones an apostate as he threatens to remove the ecclesiarchy and replace it with secularism.

The purpose of religion, outside of being a way for humans who didn't know any better to explain nature in a way that made sense to them (e.g. thunder happens because the thunder god is angry), is to unify those who have the same moral, social or racial characteristics. If the religion must exterminate those who have moral, social or racial traits that run counter to its own propagation then so be it. Deus Vult, Allah Ackbar.

>>1765410
Why do you consider yourself a Christian if you seem to be of the opinion that religious beliefs are formed by social pressures rather than divinely inspired?