As I work through the revelations in my last post about the likely roots of Christianity belonging to Rome, I have come to realize an additional motivation for the creation of religions. In the past, I focused mainly on how we as people invent gods and afterlife theories due to a fundamental inability and/or unwillingness to face the fact of our impermanence and our place in the Universe as being essentially no different than any other aspect of manifested creation. It is our egos, our notions of “I” which cannot accept the fact we are not “special” nor “more important” than any other aspect of creation, and are impermanent, and will one day pass as all forms must pass.
As I came to realize the Romans almost certainly invented Christianity, it dawned on me I had previously only focused on one-half of the puzzle of religion. The half I focused on was essentially the fact of the weak creating gods to feel strong. The Romans’ invention of Christianity is a startling example of the opposite side of the equation – of the strong creating gods to suppress the weak to ensure the will of the established power structure remains. So what I have come to realize is that religion, like politics, is really nothing more than a power game. It is just another tool to enable the weak to feel strong, and the strong to remain strong by suppressing the weak. Since both sides have so much at stake in the validation of their egos, it is no wonder humanity has worshipped gods for millennia. Rome invented gods to validate their emperors’ “divinity” and to suppress and control others. This is not surprising since Roman emperors were arguably among the hugest egomaniacs in history, even referring to themselves as gods. If the Romans did in fact invent Christianity to serve as a means to control others while at the same time tricking others into calling Caesar “Lord,” then it is no wonder Christianity is one of the most egotistical and narcissistic religions the world has ever seen. Since religion perfectly serves the ego needs of both sides of the game, the weak as well as the strong, its existence will almost certainly continue on indefinitely.
While it is often said by Christian apologists Jesus never asked us to be a “doormat” for others, I could not disagree more. When we are advised to “turn the other cheek” when someone hits us, we are being told to enable others to abuse us, and in doing this, teaching them it is ok to do so. Would it not be better to simply advise us to walk away – or not answer “evil for evil?” By asking us to either “turn the other cheek” or seek revenge, we can only remain in the dualistic game without resolution. To abuse or be abused is not the answer. To walk away from the game is the only real solution since there are no solutions within the game itself. In being told by Jesus to “turn the other cheek,” we are being told in no uncertain terms we are to be doormats to others, and subservient to those who “rule” over us. Why did Jesus not simply advise we walk away from a fight rather than resisting or allowing ourselves to be abused? Because as we discovered in my last post, “Caesar’s Messiah,” Christianity was created in part to ensure slaves and Roman subjects would accept their lot in life, and not resist their masters, while promising “afterlife rewards” for being obedient to the will of those who ruled over them.
Christianity was almost certainly invented by the Romans as propaganda to replace the Jewish militant Messiah with a pacifist Messiah whose version of Judaism would cooperate with Rome, instead of endlessly battling against it. The Jesus as found in the Christian Gospels was actually the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius, whose agenda of power and control over others was the goal – not the True freedom and enlightenment of humankind. Subservience and toleration of injustice and abuse from its subjects was a paradigm which served Rome’s interests perfectly. It is, among many other things, an excellent reason to question the traditional notion that Christianity originated from the teachings of a Jewish rabbi. The further instruction by Jesus to “love your enemies,” and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” is also the kind of advice only someone with a Roman agenda would offer, particularly within the political and social context of Jesus’ day, in which the Jewish zealots waged a century-long religious war against the Romans. While Jesus supposedly came from Jewish roots, he is presented in the Christian Gospels as remarkably pro-Roman, which is the exact opposite of the militant Messiah the Jews were expecting from the Old Testament scriptures and the “Dead Sea Scrolls” – a Messiah who would lead them militarily against Rome. All of this should alert any rational person to question the traditional explanation for the origins of Christianity on its face, even without a single shred of the overwhelming evidence against an historical Christ as found in Joseph Atwill’s book, “Caesar’s Messiah.”
No matter what angle we examine religion from, its invention comes down to these two basic sides of the eternal power struggle – the weak and the strong. Neither side is true. Both are delusional and enslaved. The powerful are slaves to maintaining their power, while the weak are slaves to the powerful. It is slavery in every sense – literally, metaphorically, and/or emotionally. This ringing endorsement for the acceptance of slavery is reflected in Jesus’ words as found in Mark 10:44, “and whoever wants to be first, must be slave of all.” When the constructs of religion are carefully examined as you would examine the Truth of anything else, it is obvious that without the need to make slaves of others or ourselves either literally and/or emotionally/metaphorically, and its resulting power struggles, religion would serve no purpose. It is a seemingly endless game, whose opposite sides religion calls “God” and “Satan.” What the religious do not comprehend is the fact these two “sides” are actually one thing – the ego itself. It is only in seeing the Reality of the Oneness of All and the ultimate illusion of the ego, in taking accountability for our lives, without blame or judgment that the game can finally come to an end and actual living can take place. As long as we are playing games on one side or another, endlessly defending and justifying ourselves or condemning and blaming others, we are engaging in emotional masturbation, always fantasizing about either becoming “powerful” and “transcending the world,” or in maintaining our delusional power trips, both of which are fueled by the delusional ego. This entire game is nothing more nor less than a perpetual focus on me – the ego.
This is why the notion of the “selflessness” of religion is preposterous and absurd. Is is all about “me.” If it were not for the “me,” none of these religious delusions would exist, since religion serves no other function but to pacify the ego’s hopes and fears… for the strong to deal with their fears in remaining strong, for the weak to hope in their aspirations for strength, and for both to deal with their ultimate fear of death and the fact of ego’s impermanence… and by their fruits… we shall know…