That's a good point. Usually, when we say "religion", most people think of the Judeo-Christian religions.

Animals didn't "lose" their souls/spirits until those monotheistic religions came along. (And I've always found that kind of odd, anyway, given that we are animals ourselves!)

I don't know that animals do or don't have souls. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me, personally. The standard Christian thinking is that humans have souls and animals don't, but I don't know whether or not I agree. I haven't given it a whole lot of thought since, as I said, it isn't something that's important to me.

As for whether or not human beings have souls...I know that they do, but I can't give you evidence. At least, none that most people would likely accept as such. In general terms, it's a faith thing, something intuitively felt rather than empirically observed or measured or what-have-you. Most people will only accept the latter as evidence, particularly so if they have no frame of reference. It makes the subject hard to debate. It usually devolves into a "Yes, we do/No, we don't" thing. Not very productive.

I think that animals have souls. Why? Holy Spirit is always in dove form.

The idea of everlasting life in some "paradise place" is, I think, a monotheistic one. The Sumerians, for example, thought you spent about 100 years as a ghost-like thing before simply fading away. (And you could get hungry if your relatives didn't bring food to the temple for the priests to feed you!)

I'm not a huge expert, but it is my understanding that the polytheistic religions didn't add "heavens" (like Valhalla) until after the influence of Christianity. You're the expert there, though.

Some sort of "realm of the dead" is common in some polytheistic religions--but it often did not sound like a paradise.

Mmmm...I'm no expert! XD

But, it's...different, I will admit. Taking out Valhalla and Sessrúmnir, as those were both reserved for the war dead chosen by the Valkyries, most people would go to Niflheim. Or, to be more technical, Hel. Hel is, well, you could compare it to the Greek world of Hades.

It's not...well, maybe not paradise, but it's not really punishment either. It's "meh." From what I gather, punishment was reserved for the worst of people. They were sent to the den of Nidhoggr, the Corpse Eater, who would go back and forth from eating the corpses of the damned to eating at the roots of Yggdrasil.

Unfortunately, I cannot say much about earlier mythologies, like Sumerian. I don't know very much about them. Although, perhaps I should visit the library, eh?

Well, if I am a polytheistic, I would not love to die because I will believe that I will be in Hades (or other underworld) after death. But I am monotheistic and...wow heaven, paradise...I can't wait to die!

ivan17: Was that supposed to be sarcastic? It's a far better thing to want to live, both for the well-being of the individual and the well-being of human life in general. You are making an (albeit loose and not particularly logically grounded) argument in favor of polytheism.

That assumes you won't go to the other place.

Hades isn't all that bad. It was said that the Elysian Fields were gorgeous in its own way. The Elysian Fields = Valhalla and Sessrúmnir, for the most part. But, all these places are reserved for the special. The heroic and virtuous.

I enjoy my polytheism just fine, thank you.

Not entirely. I'm not an expert on the beliefs of all religions, but I do know that the Egyptians had a "heaven" concept, called Aaru, the place where the purified ka (the soul) goes after death, provided their physical body (the ba) remained intact and that one passed the heart-weighing ritual. It was ruled over by Osiris. The Egyptian heaven is similar to but not quite the same concept as the Christian concept, but is indeed a "paradise place" described quite thoroughly in the so-called Book of the Dead. The Egyptians also had a "hell" concept (the Tuat or Duat, depending on how you translate) which was believed, incidentally, to be filled with lakes of fire.

So far as I've seen, most people, ancient or modern, who believe in a non-reincarnation sort of afterlife want to believe that they'll go to some paradisical place where they'll have everything they ever wanted and be with their pre-deceased loved ones and everything will be perfect and joyous, blah, blah.

...Oddly enough, I as a Christian believe that heaven is nothing like that, although I understand that that's what people seem to want. I'm just weird.

Perhaps then the Abrahamic concepts of Heaven and Hell were, in fact, influenced by the Egyptians?

It's possible, given that the Hebrews spent quite a lot of time living amongst the Egyptians. But really, not much is said about the nature of either heaven or hell in the Old Testament. MOST of the popular descriptions of heaven and hell are exaggerations of what's in (mostly) Revelation, made by, mostly, the medieval Catholic church, as either advertising or scare tactic, depending on which place is being described. Really, the Biblical evidence for the nature of either heaven or hell is...scant at best. What we think we know about either place, if either actually exists as a physical place (and that's a big "if"), is a lot of inference, at best.

And hey, if you apply science to the Bible and the scant descriptions it contains, it can be calculated that heaven is actually a lot hotter than hell. There's your fun fact for the day.

Technically belongs in the Christianity thread, but any how...

Before the current concepts of heaven and hell were developed by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, heaven was considered to be a closeness to God and hell was a seperation from God. The state of being an atheist or pagan would have been considered by the early church to be hell.

Exactly. Heaven as paradisical place of eternal reward and hell as place of eternal torment are not entirely Biblical (How Biblical you think it is tends to rely on how literally you take Revelation, in particular; I'm a symbolic preterist, myself.) and are in general much later additions to the religion. I do not agree with these additions and indeed do believe heaven and hell to be as the early church described. Most of my beliefs align with that of the early church, now that I think about it...

Although in my view hell is not the state of being a pagan/atheist/non-Christian/whatever. Rather, it is ALL of our states, currently, for we are all separated from God. Hell is just a guaranteed eternity of more of the same. For many, this is not daunting at all (which is likely why the medieval church exaggerated the suffering angle). I do not like the church's focus on reward and torment, and not just because it isn't Biblical. But you're right that discussion of this probably doesn't belong in this thread; I keep forgetting which one I'm posting in.

I was serious when I wrote that I can't wait to die. Life isn't nothing special and especialy in recession. I am also curious about heaven.
I think that Egyptians had great influence on Jews and Jews on Christians and in our Holy Bible are many similarity with Egyptian Mythology.
E.g. Duat - Judgment - Aaru ({Medieval} Hell - Purgatory - Heaven).
Set killed Osiris (two brothers) (Cain killed Abel {also two brothers}).

I personaly think that there's no Hell. I think that Hell was just good way to scare people that sin. We all know that medieval time was brood of superstition and illiteracy was very high. Also Hell is contradictory of good Yahweh.

Life isn't special? I'm sorry, but what kind of attitude is that! Life is as special as you make it; if you go around wasting it, then sure, it isn't. But if you use what time you have, then it's very special.

I would never forfeit my life just because it has little value, which I think is what you come across as saying. It may be mundane, but that does not mean extravagance is so great either. It's special because of what I do with myself, because I enjoy what I do.

Whether or not others see it as special is irrelevant. Frankly, this is perhaps my greatest ire of the modern world; this movement towards the mundane with dying passion fading away into alienation, stuck in a life of rotation. The modern world seems to have lost its interest in the most interesting of things, and merely shrugs.

But if you're wrong, you might regret being so impatient...

I agree. So many people in the modern world think that there is nothing special about life simply because science can categorize so much about the world. So many people rely on a feeling of "magic" to make them feel like life is special. I am fascinated by science; knowing what I know about science makes me think that life is special.

Postmodern philosophy also frustrates me. Postmodernists think that there is no meaning in life, no moral truth, even that there no such thing as objective reality. It's a cop out and it only serves to make people miserable.

On the other hand, the modern age is good at pointing out instances of magical thinking from the past and discrediting them. It frustrates me when people tie their feeling of specialness to something not based in reality, and then hold so tightly to it that they refuse to acknowledge how silly it is. To me, religion is included in this.

I don't see why people need to believe in fantasy in order to have interest in the world. Fantasy has it's place as a mental exercise and an escape from day-to-day life, but to actually believe it means missing the things that are so great about reality.

all religions have a different perspective on love, but they all try to teach love.

I think it depends on what you mean by "fantasy".

Personally, I believe in reincarnation. Not so much in the Buddhist sense, where the ultimate goal is to achieve enlightenment and stop reincarnating (because life is suffering, etc.), but in more of a "the earth is our learning place" sort of sense. Some people would call such a belief a fantasy. However, I don't think the belief means "missing the things that are so great about reality". If anything, it's just the opposite. There's so much to learn about reality... too much for just one lifetime, really. If you're fascinated by the world around you, I think it's kind of a neat thing to believe that we're going to have plenty of time to explore our reality, if that's what we want to do.

If I am wrong, we will be both in hell, but I'm not sure about circles.

Anyway immortals.

What?

...I have no idea, but...is he insinuating you're going to go to Hell for being a nonbeliever?

And, in short: fuck immortality.

Well, that wouldn't be surprising. Given that that IS Christian belief. It's just that most people have a very distorted view of what "going to hell" is and what it means. From a non-believer's point of view, it's not nearly the curse that Christians seem to think it is; it's merely an eternal continuation of the choice that the non-believer has already made, to be separated from God. But I guess the distorted view isn't surprising, either, given how many "fire and brimstone" preachers there are out there and given the wonderful scare tactic campaign accomplished by the medieval church, which encompassed not only church doctrine but art and literature. Speaking of which...

Not sure what Ivan means by circles, either, unless he's talking about Dante's Inferno, with its nine circles of hell...

Maybe he meant crop circles...

Or the circle of life?

Or the Circle K? They say strange things are afoot there...