Role of Religion
So many organized religions have so
many different ideas about divine matters, but they tend to have this
in common; they
possess the truth, while other faiths are "imposed upon",
to borrow Thomas Paine's terminology. I have
spoken to people of many faiths. I have invited
missionaries (Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons of late...) into our
home to discuss the topics at hand. I always invite them back,
and always enjoy our discussions. Most people I have talked
to seem to me to be well-intentioned good
folks. Yet their answers to fundamental questions don't
ring true for me. I ask them how they came to decide on their
particular faith. I am told to read the scriptures and then pray
and think about them. The answer will come. I tried
this as a young boy, and the answer did come, but it wasn't the same
answer, nor was I convinced this answer had come from "God". The
answer I received was that some questions are too big to be answered so
definitively, so soon, and that I had not lived enough to answer them
as completely as some claim to. It seems to me that certain
questions should be "lived", so to speak.
I
have nothing against going to church. I
have always said that going to church can be a positive force in ones
life. It's just that it can be a very bad one too. One need not literally
believe in a faith's doctrines to go to church and enjoy the
fellowship, comradery, moral/ethical guidance and the like.
I have many friends and relatives who go to church who are able to
refrain from literal interpretations of the scriptures as well as from
the elitist view that theirs is the "only
true church". I have tremendous respect for such
folks. Still others are - for whatever
reason - unable to refrain from such indulgences. Their faith
isn't just "true". Not
even "the best" will
suffice. It has to be the "one
and only" true faith. Wow. Just imagine the
implications of such a claim ... Just stating that your faith is "true" is a pretty bold
claim. Just how does one assess such truth? Nevertheless,
this seems acceptable because it leaves room for other
faiths that might also be "true". It doesn't result in crippling
divisions within society. But to go on and state that your faith
is the "best"? This is where it becomes apparent that there are
hidden agendas behind what we call "faith" today. And to go even
further and say your's is the "one and only" true faith?
This just staggers the imagination. Is this the
language of a benevolent, loving, omnicient
God? Or all too human demogogues who need very badly to keep the
masses conveniently divided?
Some of
the most ridiculous and irrational claims imaginable are promulgated by
organized religions, and yet many people still cling to
them. Why? The answer to this question is not hard to
see, once one looks. Getting folks to look is another question
entirely. Humanity is, and has always been, greatly divided on
the
issue of religion. Peer pressure anyone? For the most part,
folks don't chose their faith as the result of an in depth search for
truth. And indeed, such a quest is precisely what religious dogma
seeks to eradicate. Membership of organized religions, by and
large, is made up of folks who were indoctrinated into their faith from
birth. By the time they are old enough to think for themselves
their religious ties run too deep to disturb, regardless of whether or
not they really believe. Thus they hang on so as not to make
waves within their social network, which is usually, predominantly
family. Others hang on for different reasons. Some of these
are true believers. Still others don't believe, but acquiesce
because they think the truth is too dangerous. This network
becomes the mechanism by which not only religious ideas are conveyed,
but also general sociopolitical attitudes, and thus it is a crucial
part of maintaining the status quo within society. Not only does
the public mind remian pliant, but the populace remains divided, which
neutralizes the worst fear of the overclass: the mob at the
gates.
Roots of Christianity
Like it or not, the
story of Jesus bears a striking resemblance to many savior cults of antiquity, including the pagan mystery
religions as well as Greek and Roman mythology.
In the third century BC, many
Greeks worshipped Hercules, who was believed to have been born of the
union of Zeus and a human mother,
was put on Earth to undergo various trials, died, descended to Hades
for 3 days, and then was resurrected to sit at the right hand of Zeus
on Mt. Olympus. Similiarly,
the "man-god" of the
pagan mystery religions (Osiris in Egypt , Dionysus in Greece
, Attis in Asia Minor , Adonis in Syria , Bacchus in Italy , and
Mithras in Persia) has much in common with the story of Jesus, sharing
characteristics like: their father is god and mother is a mortal virgin, they
offer their followers the chance to be born again through the
rites of baptism, they die as a sacrifice for the sins of the
world, and are resurrected after 3 days. And the resurrection of
these "man-gods", including the most recent incarnate, Jesus, is
always closely associated with the winter solstice, which is around
Dec. 21st.
Why the winter solstice? Because this is when the length of the
day begins to get longer again - every year. For the ancients,
this time of year represented the triumph of light over darkness and it
was of critical importance to their crops.
And the significance of the resurrection after 3 days? Every year
after the winter solstice, the path of the sun appears to stop
moving. The sun's path gets a little bit lower in the sky each
day until the solstice around December 21st, but before starting to
move higher again, it appears to pause. The length of this pause
is 3 days. Hence the rebirth of light on December 25th. Why
else would all of these characters have died, and been reborn, at this
precisely this time of year? It is understandable that the
ancients would develop this man-god tradition around the movement of
the sun, something of utmost importance to them. And some of these stories are so ancient they can be
traced back to pyramid texts written over 4,500 years ago. The
story of Jesus is part of a continuity of revelation that is thousands
of years old.
These similiarities
were even noted during the early centuries. Celsus, a
philosopher who lived during the 2nd century, wrote of
the similiarities. Celsus was a critic of the Church, but
even early
Christian leaders, including Iraneaus, St. Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, and Firmicus Maternus,
acknowledged the similiarities between the story of Jesus and pagan
mystery religions. They responded with claims of "diabolical mimicry", that the
Devil had actually plagiarized Christianity in anticipation
of the coming Christ!
Obviously many Christians find all this troubling. Do some
research. Check it out for yourself. It's important enough
- isn't it?
Formation of the New
Testament canon
The teachings of Jesus
are clearly a good thing. If we would truely appreciate
them, wouldn't we just leave it at that? Why make claims
about Jesus regarding things we really don't know?
Why not just take these teachings and live by them? Why isn't
that enough? Clearly there are other interests involved
here. If we take a close, objective look at the history of
Christianity we find that the
teachings of Jesus have, to borrow Benjamin
Franklin's terminology, "received various corrupting
Changes." How this happened is well documented.
Irenaeus,
the Bishop of Lyon in the second century, was concerned that the
followers of Jesus were so fragmented, and that there were so many
different perspectives and interpretations of Jesus' teachings.
He concluded that, in order to unify the Church, only four gospels
should be read and taught, since afterall, there were "four corners to the universe", and "four principal winds".
Ireneaus coined the term "orthodox" ("straight thinking") to
describe his interpretation of Jesus' teachings, and "heterodox" ("thinking otherwise") to describe Gnostic
interpretations, which had a very different idea about who Jesus was
and what he taught.
In 325 AD, Roman
Emporer Constantine called together several hundred quarreling
Christian Bishops to attempt to resolve the theological
controversy over the nature of God and Christ. This meeting was
called the Council of Nicaea. One of the
outcomes of this council was the adoption of a universal statement
of Christian faith known as the Nicene Creed, which established the
divinity of Jesus Christ. After
being in session for an
entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the Nicene Creed . Ammendments were made at the second Ecumenical Council in 381 AD.
The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that the text of the
Nicene Creed decreed at the First and Second Councils to be complete
and forbade any additional changes (addition or deletion) to it.
The new creed of the Church was
enforced by the State. Church leaders who would not adopt the newly established
doctrine were anathematized and excommunicated.
Imperial edicts were ordered.
In 367
AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, issued
a decree banning all scriptures not explicitly approved by the central
church authorities. All books that conflicted with the newly established doctrine
were burned. Concealment of such books was punishable by death. Constantine's motive behind the creation of the Nicene
Creed was to solidify his political position. He thus sought
to unite society under Christianity by making it the state
religion. He believed that the "one God, one religion" mentality
would consolidate his claim of "one
Empire, one Emperor". Christianity became well established
in Rome under the Emperor Theodosius (378-395 CE). The worship
of the old pagan gods was prohibited. Thus we
see organized religion being used as a political tool, as it still is
today. Christians
who refused to accept the Nicene Creed founded at the Council of
Nicaea were banished or otherwise silenced. Constantine, who
later murdered his wife Fausta and son Crispus, put off being
baptized until he was on his deathbed, thinking this would ensure
that all his sins would be purged just before he died, guaranteeing his
place in heaven.
The Nicene Creed
remained a very powerful force through the middle ages and the modern era, and even
maintains alot of power to this day, since the banished gospels
were just that - banished. They were largely unknown. But
in 1945, Egyptian
peasants discovered an urn while digging in a cave in the
upper Nile Valley, near the town of Nag Hammadi.
The urn contained 52 texts which have proved to be a treasure
trove for scholars and historians, as it contained many of the banned
Gnostic gospels but not a single copy of a
gospel now in the New Testament canon. These writings, which were read alongside the writings now in
the New Testament canon by early Christians, show Jesus in a very
different light than what we are accustomed to from reading
the Bible. These manuscripts reflect the reality
of a highly fractured church whose various factions had radically
different ideas about who Jesus was. In the Gospel of Thomas
for example, Jesus is not portrayed as divinity as he is in
the New Testament. Jesus tells Thomas that they have both
received their being from the same source. And for Gnostics,
self-awareness is of utmost importance. Indeed for them,
self-awareness is knowledge of God. The Gnostics emphasize
spiritual awareness, looking inward for answers, free- thought,
etc... In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says,
"Let him who seeks continue
seeking until he finds. When he finds, her will become
troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he
will rule over the all." ...
"When you come to know yourselves,
then you will become known, and you will realize that it is
you who are the sons of the living father. But if you do not
know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that
poverty." ...
"If you bring forth what is within
you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring
forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy
you."
One would think that
these writings would also be a treasure trove to all Christians, and that anyone who really cared
about Jesus' teachings would be very anxious to get their hands on a
copy to read; that they might learn something new about their savior ... But since the Nag
Hammadi discovery in 1945 many Christians are reluctant to accept the
teachings, even refusing to consider them. It appears a great
many Christians today are simply unable to accept the notion that they
may have received some bad information, or that they might not have
received all of the
information, as if such a thing were unheard of. This is because church authorities
today - like earlier church authorities - are actively denouncing the
Gnostic gospels as heresy. They don't want Christians to be free
thinkers like Jesus advocated. Church authorities would much
rather be able to control the minds of their membership. The
political implications here are obvious
Anyone who really cared about the teachings of Jesus would want
to learn more about them, all
of them. But orthodox Christianity encourages people not
to think so much as to simply accept Church dogma. We now know
this is exactly what Jesus was against. This is the
part of his teachings was systematically subjugated back in the early
centuries of the Church, and ultimately kept out of the
canon. Encouraging free thought was the last thing the
Church wanted to encourage. A movement of free thinkers could not
be allowed to emerge. Since Jesus advocated free thought, the
story would have to be changed. History would need to be
rewritten. Many gospels would have to be done away with -
banished - outlawed - burned.
Should
we shun these factual, historical manuscripts, which were studied by
early Christians alongside the canonical gospels , just because they
show a side of Jesus that we are not accustomed to hearing about?
Shouldn't we be skeptical about the fact that many early Christian
texts were banished, burned and purposefully kept out of the
canon? Is it not clear that Jesus' teachings have been tampered
with? Does it come as any surprise that the teachings of a
radical, revolutionary thinker were tampered with ? And isn't
this precisely what got Jesus killed? Will we allow powermongers
to rewrite our history? Today, many Biblical scholars and
historians believe that the Gospel of Thomas must
be included as an authentic fifth gospel, alongside the canonical
quartet of John and the 3 synoptics. It will be interesting to see what happens with this
...
Conclusions
The
fact that church dogma doesn't stand up to reason and historical facts
clearly shows that the Church is not very interested in
truth. And how is it that the Church can draw conclusions that fly
in the face of reason and still have any credibility? Religion has been called "the
opiate of the masses". I don't know if religious dogma
provides a peace of mind that is literally addicting. Perhaps a
neurologist could answer that one. Nevertheless I do think it's
safe to say that there's something about our wiring which provides
positive reinforcement for conformity to church dogma. It's vital that
we cultivate the status quo ... the social order, unity, safety and
security which concensus provides. It's the glue
that holds us together. There is power in
numbers. Our story
doesn't need to be true as long as we have one, and as long as it is
effective in maintaining the status quo. Questioning the
story is inherently abhorant because it makes the questioner stand out,
lose their camouflage, separating them from the security of the
group. Nobody wants to be looked at as the weird one or the odd
man out. Fitting in and social status are paramount for us
humans. No one wants to put strain on the important
relationships in
their life.
Isn't it high time everyone began
taking a closer look at the straight truth - at where their doctrines
and scriptures part with historical facts, and stop reveling in their imagined
superiority? There's no reason that one's
religion, faith, spirituality or whatever else we might choose to call
it shouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Faith is fine, but we still
have to figure out what our faith is, do we not? This process
need not involve reason exclusively - no - but it need not fly in the face of reason
either. Is it not possible to enjoy a faith
which history supports? Of course it is.
Perhaps
you believe people should be allowed to tell whatever stories they
like. This stance certainly has intuitive appeal, and it
certainly melts with me, at least on the surface. The problem is
that just telling stories (and acknowledging the stories as just that
...) is never enough. Many organized religions have to take it a
few steps further, making the ridiculous claim that theirs is "the only true church", and this is
where the problems begin. Not just a "great church." Even
"the best church" will not suffice. It has to be the one and only
true church in existence! Why can't folks just enjoy the
traditions, moral/ethical guidance, fellowship and comradery and leave it alone? Why can't
folks just say "my church is one of
many true paths"? This is where the true motives of
organized religion begin to show themselves.
Human
beings have always needed heroes. We see it in Hollywood,
professional sports, and in religion. Human beings have always gone to
great lengths to maintain the images of their heroes. But the
fact which endures is this; people remain sharply divided
over who the real hero is
- who the "chosen people" are. And what has been the result of
this
division ? Violence, murder, bloodshed ... probably more than
could ever be counted, and right up to the present day. And who
benefits the most from all this conflict? And who has the
greatest interest in keeping the populace divided? (and the greatest
fear of a populace which is unified?)
The answers to life's "big questions" tend not to reside
in the extremes ... in cut and dry answers. But
it has become fashionable these days to allude to "simplicity", when
it's convenient anyway. It makes a good story line, but not
everything is simple It's ok that life's big questions involve
some complexity and require time. This is precisely where we
should expect to see some complexity. This
is precisely where we should expect to need patience. It is
no wonder then that extremists ( individuals who are either ruled by
fear or, on the other end of the spectrum, an over-inflated ego ) have
a hard time dealing with the big questions. They are all about
hard, fast answers. Thus the really important questions,
which of course cannot be answered completely,
universally, finally and definitively, that are highly personal,
that require a process and a passage of time to even begin to
approach, are inherently abhorant to extremists. The answers
extremists tend to come up with then are disastrous and of course succeed
only in belittling the questions. And desperate people tend
towards the extremes.
Surely it makes more sense to just admit that we're
really not certain of some things. After all, when it comes to
the really big questions, this is in
fact the truth, like it or not. Why be at war with the
truth? All we can do is continually reflect upon the big
questions - refine our thinking about them - using all our
experiences in the process to move closer to a better understanding of
the questions and their answers (or lack thereof...) An
open mind is receptive to new information and new
insight. Why not put oneself in a position to
assimilate it? Is it not easy to see where church dogma
would stand in the way of this assimilation? Better to live
without complete,
definitive answers than to live with cheap substitutes.
Things
like the 911
attacks nd
the JFK
assasignation teach us that many
choose to embrace the status quo even in the face of glaring
inconsistencies and flagrant internal contradictions. Similiarly,
many people today are aware of the political and religious lies
that they were indoctrinated into as children, but they still embrace
these lies because they believe the lies work, much in the way that
Plato’s “noble lie” allegedly works, much the way Machiavellian
deception supposedly was for the good of the whole. There
may be some truth to such lies and deception. But even if there
is, it is short-sighted. These
lies were not intended to serve us beyond making us
comfortable. That's how they sell it. But
even if this serves us now,
it is not
likely to do the same for our grandchildren. The same freedoms
that are available to us are not likely to be available to future
generations if we allow wealth and power to continue consolidating the
way that they have been. The idea that a society based
of political and religious deception will be an enduring and
positive force in the world is just a bit too much to swallow for
thinking people.
"When you come to
know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that
it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you
do not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that
poverty." ...
"This
is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for
complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the
philosophy is kindness."
Dalai Lama
Believe
nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I
have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common
sense." Buddha