Long ago one man came as an ethical reformer and was not welcomed. Unfortunately, the majority of the real message of a very unique man was co-opted by the Roman Empire for political reasons and obscured by accounts of his life occurring well beyond his death and rewritten many times by opportunistic clergy. Eh, maybe they didn't 'get it' and wrote around the stuff they didn't understand. It's like a Philip K. Dick novel that just can't be written for the big screen.
Moving south a little, you really have to wonder if Christianity got "re-culted." The Catholic (Universal) church is referred to as the "Holy Roman Church" uses Latin as it's official language and refers to it's leaders using Latin titles. Is this why we don't want the merging of religion to the state? We seem to still be stuck in Empire mode.
Religion was early recognized to be a power to be reckoned with. It was an essential part of life. Roman Consuls consulted Pontiffs in the affairs of state, until Emperors became gods themselves (Usually after their death, to be fair).
Rome adopted many, if not all, of the Greek Pantheon of gods. Religion seems to have never been truly separated from the state and often an integral part of it. Kings and then Emperors would generally consult with the intermediaries of the Gods, priests. I'm sure that regardless of the power a ruler possessed, he was still an agent of an established religion. Defying the religious establish could result in being overthrown or murdered. In a hierarchical social order, someone is always available to move up the pyramid. I'm inclined to believe the pyramidal structure does not, in fact exist. We live in a false social order established and maintained by "middle-management" every bit as ignorant as those above it and below it. Think of a diamond with the middle managers forming the bulge in the center. The priestly class knew enough that power was behind the throne, ensuring their survival and never having to be called into question for making a bad decision. "The King did not act according to the will of the gods!"
The King needs advisers because he doesn't know everything to maintain the state. A king needs subjects or he is the leader of nothing. People seem to want to be led. Maybe people want to be led because it absolves them from the responsibility to maintain the apparatus. It's more appealing to be a cog in the state apparatus because you are only "doing what you're told." Those that cannot be fulfilled in present condition will attempt to move up the ladder by vice or virtue. Not everyone wants to be a King nor could anyone. I suppose the most appealing position for the priestly caste is the somewhat ignorant leader who can be controlled enough to maintain order. If a leader cannot be sufficiently controlled he will be caste aside for a new leader.
I suggest Michael Parenti's "Assassination of Julius Caesar." Defying convention, Parenti suggests Julius Caesar made a critical mistake in attempting to become a social reformer, thus really pissing off the wealthy senators and patricians. He also suggests that our understanding of Rome during this time was handed down to us from the viewpoint of Cicero (a notorious slum lord) and others who were basically screwing the Roman masses. Caesar challenged the system and sought to make real and needed social and economic reforms needed by the common Roman citizen, but that threatened the upper classes, for this, Caesar was killed. I would remind the reader that a Dictatorship during this period was a valid governmental function and office. The fact is the Senate and Pompey attempted to royally screw Caesar from his Consulship and he would not oblige them. Caesar's success in Gaul really didn't help his image as it was viewed as personal ambition, not for the Roman state. If he was guilty of anything, it was assuming he could bring these changes to Rome with a corrupt nobility and Senate in power. A rather delicate balance between nobility and masses is required, neither of which can be fully placated.
The Roman "mob" I suspect, wasn't that much of a mob after all. They were simply people leading harsh lives being entertained by "Bread and Circuses." The nobility adopted their gods from the Greeks and perfected the meme of religion. People held in subjugation with abstract ideals of gods and powers that could not be proven nor disproved. It's generally thought that religion and the ideas of gods where mans earlier attempts to explain natural phenomenon they could not understand. Maybe a few understood the natural world and language barriers inhibited the concepts to others. When my dog hears thunder it barks. Does she retort out of fear or she reply to a distant unseen supreme canine?
The state seems to be the strong arm of a religious establishment and enforces the massively centralized hierarchical structure of government or empire. People accept the state apparatus, in not doing so, it would be against the will of a supreme being. It also gives them security. The state as the enforcer must have a rigid control system in place to quell rebellion. The state, working as an entity (virus) must expand in order to sustain itself. It will do so at any cost and gamble it's existing power even faced with apparent failure. Today, the U.S seems to be exhibiting the same symptoms in the Middle East, namely for oil. We are almost at the brink of economic collapse for oil. The U.S. gambling everything for the hoped victory of controlling energy resources to further expand its power. What if the U.S. achieves it goals? Who else will become the external enemy to maintain the state's voracious appetite, the common man? It appears the ultimate goal is a Patrician ideal of utopia; A permanently controlled two-class super-state.
I suspect Constantine was smart enough to recognize the political arm of the Roman state was failing and falling to the opposition. Christianity re-branded? The deification of Roman Emperors was becoming common. You could always question a man, but never a god. It's one thing to fight the Army of an Empire, but an early form of psychological warfare fighting an army of a God. Very empowering to consider yourself as an agent of a god, you can perform unacceptable atrocities and get a free pass for doing his will.
Keeping in line with the preceding paragraph, there are remarkable similarities with the life of Christ with other mythic resurrected beings. The reason why they are common themes is due to the undeniable cyclical nature of life and seasons. Its completely understandable as this phenomenon could be observed. Rome itself was horrified at mystery religions because they were decentralized non-hierarchy beliefs that could not be controlled. While Rome and Greece had a pantheon of gods, Zeus/Jupiter was the head of household. This hierarchy of gods supports the hierarchy of state and vice versa. To retain the power of the state, it merged pagan holidays with Christianity to placate the masses; hence we still have vestiges of pagan belief wrapped around Christian holidays (which are in fact still pagan holidays). What did the Council of Nicaea actually do? It reformed the Roman Empire from its ashes like a Phoenix and expanded into Europe, in many cases by force. It challenged heretical (those that choose or choice) Gnostic thinkers that believed religion was a purely individual experience, not lead by a hierarchical system of priests. Mystery cults that recognized the divine feminine also took to ecstatic rituals, dancing and mind altering substances. The antithesis of a state controlled hierarchical system where rulers acted in accordance with the will of the gods. Any religion teaching the innate power and divinity of man who is capable of enlightenment without an intermediate priest is dangerous to social order. This type of thinking would destroy the state, the class system, change the distribution of wealth and render government obsolete.
Gnosticism and later Catharism was a serious threat to authority. Early Gnostics believed spirituality was about enlightenment and that mankind’s relationship with the creator was an individual one. The Gnostics and Cathars were branded heretics. They were swiftly and horrifically dispatched. The ruling class went out of their way and at great cost to themselves to do so.
Wolves exhibit a social order and seem to operate within a manageable sphere. They fight; possess territory for feeding and have a social order. One thing they seem to be more aware of is maintaining a manageable relationship with their environment and do not overextend themselves. Humans do not maintain equilibrium with the environment thus create an uncontrolled spiral to collapse. Wolves and other furry friends seem to be more aware of the results of overextending their resources. Predators stick to the wounded or slowest of the herd. Attacking the strongest would result in a catastrophic collapse of the pack. The herd would eventually collapse from disease due to lack of predators.
I suppose sexuality is controlled by the state and religion due to its survival. Do humans manage sexuality to maintain security in a controlled way and does this go awry if equilibrium isn't maintained? I suspect those in power cannot maintain it if mankind is in a state of equilibrium. State and religious authority attempt to control every aspect of humanity. Who you fuck and the offspring become important to pass on wealth and status.
I'd go so far to say the real sickness is hoarding for security to maintain the illusion of power. Alexander the Great created a vast Empire that only lasted during his life. The resulting loss of power and Alexander created a vacuum and temporarily fragmented the empire. Empires seem to exist tenuously due to a lack of balance between wealthy and the poor. Off-Kilter is it's natural state. The greater sickness seems to be the fear of the wealthy losing power and having nothing. Hierarchical systems cannot be maintained if everyone’s needs are being met.
Mankind as a whole is still locked in the realm of superstitious rubbish and has not yet spiritually evolved are simply forgot our true nature. Sure, a few people have risen above the slime but not the whole of humanity. I suspect this day is coming. State and religious organization working together or separate have one thing in common; they require belief in order to operate and will take the most drastic measures to ensure its continuity and survival.
Questions:* Is the state subservient to religion?
* Does religion actually control the state?
* Are these two entities constantly at war with each other for superiority?
* Are they the same?
* All of the above?
Think of the "Crown and the Cross" or the "Crook and Flail." These symbols of power still exist in tandem at present. I see no difference as the same person wields both. Think of the iconic image of "King Tut" and his crook and flail. The same image exists on the Great Seal of the United States as arrows and the olive branch (wielded by a bird of prey). Remember, King Tut was the son of Ankenton, the first Pharaoh attributed to founding monotheism. Several alternative theories suggest Akhenaton was in fact Moses of the bible. Early Egyptians were polytheistic and history shows us that Akhenaton created a warlike state and unwelcome change in Egypt. Every effort was taken to eradicate Akhenaton’s image from temples after his death. Akhenaton was the first to create a religion to maintain state authority. Early Egyptian polytheists were aware of eight aspects of divinity and the dual nature of man called "Ba" and "Ka."
It's noted that early Christian Churches were often built on pagan holy sites. This is akin to a dog pissing on a tree to mark its territory. I'm certain with the meme breaks down another one is ready to take it's place. The replacement will always have a hierarchy. For those of you who think Judaism, Christianity is a strictly monotheistic religion with no hierarchy, you truly have done no reading or know the meaning of "Elohim" (a plurality of beings) or consider the multitude of angels and their roles. I would bet, that in reality, there is simply a one-to-one relationship with the creator and man. Intermediaries not needed or required. Were earlier pagan religions in opposition to Gnostic Christianity? I think not, as the same themes are found in many different religions and cultures. It looks and though these ideals or subverted by the state and the latest "new" religion is co-opted and requires the elimination of former gods or it's assimilation at least. If man loses faith in his old gods, we'll create a newer better god with 20% more power!
The majority of world mythologies refer to an earlier idyllic existence in which mankind was in a harmonious state with his fellow man and nary a want of anything. They were polytheistic and in harmony with nature. These golden ages, usually turn to metals of less luster but higher density. It appears that organizational units formed (governments) and created an enemy out of it's own humanity. Spirituality turned into a religion of the state that further sought power over the individual man. We are in fact devolving and at war with ourselves.
We celebrate technology, mechanistic thought and behavior over our collective humanity. In a logarithmic spiral (the other direction) we pick up speed, as we get closer to our destructive impulses, which are fostered upon us by a false and contrived culture (because they care enough to do the very worst).
Look at human history and you should note that Empires either destroy or assimilate indigenous societies. They are generally monotheistic, technical and brutal.
You should be concerned about the blissfully contrived "Technological Singularity." It seeks to turn men into (killing) machines that simply produce and devour. We collectively become devoid of emotion, individuality and effectively so. Everything neatly ordered, cataloged, controlled. Any thought deviating from the collective hive mind to be deposed of if it can't be reprogrammed. Gene therapy to produce monstrous hybrids, drugs to produce conformity and people managed like cattle with no freedoms or liberties. Why, to perfect evil and create a strict and uncompromising binary model. In this world the technocrats, having separated themselves from nature, seek to destroy it because they fear it.
Spiritual ignorance leads to superstitious religion and religion partnered with technology, without the wisdom to use it, is a terrible partnership indeed. Until we become aware of who we are we'll continue to create dangerous substitutions. I have the suspicion we are afraid of our identity and ourselves.
Regardless of whether you believe in a man called Yeshua Bar Yosef or not, consider his message, not the elaborately contrived dogma surrounding his life. He was a threat to the establishment. His lifeless image hanging on the cross in the church symbolizes their perceived victory over the authentic man. Even if he died on the cross, they could not destroy the idea and it appears it's plagued them ever since. Your religious leaders don't love anything more than the identity, authority and income;in which the empty shell they created around him gives them.
Yes, my dear reader, the world is full of diversity. Politically correct speech heralding diversity is a mind-fuck meant to become a new state sponsored religion where you can't use a racial epitaph but will continue to profile, subjugate and shit on people who look or think differently. Politically correct speech enforces polarity and rigid thinking, no different than a whacked out fanatical fundamentalist. It's the "Progressive Liberal Version" of the same bullshit we see on the far right of the spectrum. Have they got a new religion for you? The state can re-brand religion quicker than you can sneeze an orgasmic volume or air and mucus. Gods or idols not required.
You can bet your sweet ass this combined religious state doesn't give a shit about you. Don't trust the cross or the crown; they'll screw you the first chance they get.“The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.”
Doctor Albert Einstein (letter to Sigmund Freud 7/30/1932)
