Just an idea that popped up recently.
Assume that both heaven and hell exist as places where the sentient "soul" will reside after separation from the phyisical self. Now in all the art from the Dark Ages and the Renaissance, we see a clear cut difference in heaven and hell, where heaven is a place for the virtuous, accepting Christ as the saviour, where conversely, hell is the opposite.
What if heaven and hell were more similar than you think? Let me explain.
Archaic art ALWAYS depicts heaven as holy, but looking at this from a logically historic point of view, this seems incredibly BIASED, as though it was a form of "spiritual propaganda".
As you all know, the church was the most powerful organisation in the world in that period, and they have suppressed any forms of art and texts that even minutely praise the existence of hell, as though they have something to hide. By having more followers on who wish to blindly follow the so called "divine" and to restrict themselves, compared to the people who believe in freedom of doing what they find pleasurable (lust, gluttony, sloth, vanity).
This is very similar to the cold war, where the Warsaw pact was the restricter, and NATO were the supporters of individual freedoms. Propaganda on both sides exaggerated the ill qualities of their enemies and favorable qualities of themselves.
In a nutshell, im trying to say that what if hell isnt what people think it is, but just an over accused place that is different to the norm and suffering from gross bias.
it is impossible to find hard evidence to support this, but looking at other cases such as the cold war, historically speaking, the art and texts describing heaven and hell may be innaccurate and we have all been fooled for a long time.
|
Threaded Mode
