Imagine no Religion by Roberto Diego

Copyright 2008 Roberto Diego. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the copyright holder. This book is being offered to publishers who might be interested in publishing it as a hard cover or paper cover book. If you are a publisher and would like to talk to the author about publication of this book, please contact by email robdiego@aol.com.

Below is Chapter 2 of this earth shattering book. To order click on the order form link. Special: The next ten copies of this book are free.

Chapter 12. The Tyranny of Organized Religion – Cult as Culture Link coming soon

The Chorus

The chorus in ancient drama was invented by the Greeks and is seen in some of the oldest plays of the Greek civilization. To modern man it seems like an incongruous and unnecessary dramatic device that later generations discarded. It functioned in these plays as if it were a person though comprised of a number of people saying (or singing) the same thing. It was presumably designed as a dramatic device to enhance the emotional involvement of the audience, to bring the spectators into the emotions of the characters. The chorus was able to predict the future, understand the vicissitudes of fate, read the minds of the chief protagonists and understand the deeper meanings of the events of the play. The chorus was the collective universe, all knowing and wise, emotional and involved in events. The chorus was the culture participating in the events of the play.

Robin Mitchell-Boyask, Temple University, defines a chorus as a “group of 12-15 men who sing and dance during the plays. They often represent the collective community, but not necessarily the poet's thoughts.” [1]

The chorus originated with the singing of the dithyramb, a hymn to the god Dionysus during the mystery rites.[2] Thespis, the tragedian, introduced it into Greek drama, probably due to its power in communicating strong feelings and influencing the Greek audience; and possibly Greek drama was a development, through progressive benignity, of the Mystery religions. The dithyramb was sung with intense emotion and fire; it was an expression of deep feelings that were supposed to contribute to the attainment of catharsis in the characters and spectators of the story.

We can imagine the chorus as originating from early sacrificial rites where the group or society sought to find a way to propitiate the menacing gods, who, as legend has it, dealt deadly blows to early tribes. Presumably, if the tribe could offer up one of its most beautiful members as “victim” the god might be so pleased with the gift that he might spare the rest of the tribe. The chorus, then, was the voice of the people, deciding what must be done to save the tribe; it was the primitive collective that had the power to dispose of individual lives for the sake of the group.

The authority of the chorus is that of “the others,” it is political speeches and calls for unity and solidarity; it is the imposing voice that comes from society that says you must join us in order to be secure. And as with any group, the chorus is the source of fear; it is fickle, illogical and impulsive. It is insecure as would be true of any group comprised of individuals who are insecure. And, at the same time, the chorus is thought to be the word of the gods. This ambiguous, contradictory concept is indeed the cause of many nightmares specifically because it is ambiguous and contradictory. That few of us know that the discomfort many of us feel in our lives is caused by this imposing concept is one of the reasons why I consider it one of the key destructive cultural paradigms. That it is pervasive explains why many men live unhappy lives with their minds full of the drumbeat of subconscious voices telling them what they think others think.

It has been noted by Burkhardt[3] that the Greeks were constantly criticizing each other and had elevated character assassination to a very cruel art practiced by almost all men especially in public life. Indeed, during certain periods of their history, they were a fearful and depressed people who lashed out at each other on a constant basis. When one can only expect unearned criticism, one knows that one will always dissatisfy someone – and this state is difficult to live with, hence the insecurities and depressions for which both the Greeks and modern man are well known.

In my view, the chorus is one of the chief subconscious causes of anxiety in millions of people. Most modern psychologists have not identified the fear of the collective as one of the key causes of psychological disintegration; which only indicates the degree to which many of them are still controlled and manipulated by the concept themselves. That they have yet to identify the very real dangers that this concept has made possible (including the manipulation of the mob toward war and genocide) is a scandal. That religion is the cause of this fear is why it has been allowed to go undiscovered.

In psychological terms, the chorus is the emotional expression of, and the moral authority for, hatred of the ego as validated by and given power by moral dualism. The chorus and its seeming paranormal “dialogue” with the individual represent conflict between the individual and others (parents, peers, culture). Each dialogue represents an argument where the chorus of men chastises and criticizes the individual for not living up to their standards or not performing the (self-sacrificing) actions deemed appropriate by the collective. This dialogue engenders both extreme fear and anger within the individual who is expected to change present behavior toward socially prescribed behavior.

The chorus is always confronting individuals, always criticizing and exhorting the individual who is the target of its traumatizing manipulation. The chorus, especially, will warn a happy person not to be too happy lest the gods choose to punish him precisely for his happiness. The chorus expresses disdain at the confidence of the man whom the gods can easily destroy. Fate is the chorus’ weapon against the individual and the warning is: fear the gods for they are mightier than you. This means also, fear the chorus of people that tells you to fear the gods.

For the ancient Greeks, when the chorus disapproved, one was doomed to suffer at the whim of the fates. The average Greek must certainly have gone into a deep depression (see Ajax) if he felt that he was no longer a favorite of the gods. This sort of response is reminiscent of psychological disintegration, of the feeling that life is over, that one is humiliated before the gods and the chorus of people and that there is nothing more one can do about it. It is, so to speak, over. Consider that in the Greeks’ version of democracy the people held the power of life and death over even trivial matters. Look at Socrates who was condemned to drink hemlock because he was considered seditious for his ideas. Look also at the yearly Greek custom of casting lots for the expulsion of one man who was considered the most powerful among them. There can be no more powerful demonstration of the power of the collective to control the individual through the admonition, “get out, you are too successful.”

The chorus in Greek drama expresses the power of the collective in the lives of most Greeks, the power and persuasive ability of a number of people acting as a unified whole when compared to just one person. This power was believed by the Greeks to be overwhelming. Today, with the further assistance of progressive benignity, collectivism is the manifestation of the chorus and reveals all the characteristics (in the minds of most people) of the chorus in Greek plays including omniscience, moral power and conscience.

Modern man is influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by “the crowd,” “others,” “them,” etc., because he is taught that others are more important than individuals, that we must give ourselves to the greater good, that it is better to give than receive, and a whole host of collectivist clichés, philosophies and cultural institutions. The collective is that for which we are taught to sacrifice and to which we are taught to conform. Starting with the chorus of family members who admonish the young child to be good, to sacrifice to others, to love the under-dog, to hate the rich, to fear god and burning in hell, the child is given a nightmare, disintegrating universe of paranoid ideas and magical shifting of everything that should be solid and sure. The culture then gives him altruism, self-sacrifice and alienation to close the deal and gather a new lamb ripe for exploitation and acquiescence.

To illustrate the ambiguity of the collective and its debilitating influence on man, observe that in any given circumstance the individual fears the collective either because it is supposedly infallible and/or because it is irrational. In this sense, the chorus is a deep mystery of incongruous elements, all creating a sort of lynch mob of the subconscious, giving the individual a sense of being bad whenever he encounters others, no matter what he has done, and giving him a need to obtain their approval at the expense of the self. There is nothing left for which to live.

The collective is an outgrowth of tribalism and is not the same thing as a free society. The free society is the newest and most modern answer to the fallacies of collectivism because it eliminates the elements of force, faith and cultural paradigms as controlling factors in the lives of individuals. A free society is based upon individual rights and as such has no connection with collectivism. As a culture, we have made a mistake when we equate freedom and collectivism. A free society is created by recognizing the capacity of man to use reason; it is based upon a recognition that the best way for people to interact is through mutual respect, reasonable discourse and the right of each individual to think for himself, choose for himself and to own property. Collectivism, on the other hand, was created by having faith in the false power of the collective (the chorus) to dictate and dominate man’s thoughts, actions, property and morality.

Before Greek drama, there were the passion plays and initiation rites of the Mystery religions. These passion plays were a reenactment of myth where the initiate was a participant in the drama involving the life of the deity. The initiate was a member of the host of humanity who must purify himself, reach catharsis, and find a new more pure understanding of man’s role in the life and adventures of Dionysus and other Promethean style figures. Catharsis meant a new understanding, an elevated knowledge of the deeper meanings of the Mystery religions.

The Greeks feared the mob because their society was partly an outgrowth of terror and of experimentation with both collectivist and legally constituted society. This is seen in their most important myths, the Iliad and the Odyssey where the gods interfered in human affairs on a regular basis. Their collective was a symbol of the irrationality and pettiness of their gods not to mention their utter disregard for mere men. As the gods go, so do men. This is the principle of religious emulation and the Greeks were very religious in this regard. They, their chorus and their collective danced the ritual dance of hatred of the ego, of the mystery religions, of punishment of anyone who had the effrontery to be like god.

Today, through the principle of progressive benignity, the ritual dance involves never challenging the collective, always doing what one is told, conforming to social and religious injunctions and worshiping others as above one’s self. The collective offers hatred and anger toward the individual who stands up to be different in clear and important ways such as in conviction, beliefs and accomplishment. Today, anyone who stands to excel and distinguish himself in any way, without first paying homage to the collective or the gods will be flogged by public opinion, the media and any institution of control; the government, the church or the angry crowd. The usual argument is to accuse this person of believing he is better than god or better than others, to attempt to flog this person in public, to disenfranchise him and to ensure that he is ostracized and life is made difficult. Look at the lives and struggles of many achievers today that have found the attention of the public for proof of how difficult it is to “be a god.”

Today, politicians use the principle of the chorus to manipulate public opinion, political movements and decisions. Polls are the weapons used in order to prove to people that public opinion is what politicians desire. The presumption is that people who do not agree with a particular political goal or opinion should fear the mass of people as if there were some magical correctness in the views of the majority. When the people speak it is wrongly considered to be the voice of truth.

Demagogues use the chorus, in the form of collectivism, to perform a most interesting (and evil) slight of hand. In effect, they use collectivist language to expropriate a group of people as the property of the government. Through this language they create a “collective” problem, take the leadership in solving “our” problem and then provide collectivism, in the form of coercion, as the solution for the stoked up problem. Through this process, people like Hillary Clinton, for example, assume that all assets in a society belong to her (or the government) and since the group consists of voters, they steamroll government action, not in order to solve the problem, but to take over the lives of people and make them dependent upon government – which makes individuals within the group evil if they disagree with the government’s control of their lives. This demagoguery is the method that will be used in the coming years in order to drive our country toward dictatorship.

The chorus tells you to pay your taxes, give to the poor, volunteer for good causes, do good deeds for others, kill Socrates, etc. And since the chorus has moral authority and higher numbers, you had better do these things or you will find hatred from others.

The Good/Evil Paradigm

The Good/evil paradigm makes clichés of all ethical statements such as “you should do good.” Many of our young people properly and cynically dismiss authority figures regarding these clichés and do not accept the same tired pronouncements that we did not accept as young people. But the culture gives to them, like it did to us, nothing in the realm of ethics that is not a worn, meaningless cliché. In spite of this, the good/evil paradigm is one of the more complex cultural paradigms in man’s history. Its impact on men and societies is so profound that without its lethal influence the world would be unrecognizable from what it is today.

The philosophical source of the Good/evil paradigm is the idealism of Plato who held that all concepts were dependent on a memory in another dimension where all prototypes exist. For Plato, these “essences” were the only reality whereas what we see in the real world is an imperfect reflection of this essence. Western religion merely took Plato’s essences and assigned them to God while it assigned to the real world the idea of imperfection, copy, unreality and unknowable. The development of intrinsic good and evil was the key step that polarized all concepts of good and evil and created a perennial misunderstanding of the true meanings of these terms.

According to this view, the individual needs to merely possess characteristics that are considered intrinsically good in order to be moral. No other investigation is required. He is either one of us (good) or one of them (evil). Yet, you will notice that these characteristics change from generation to generation, culture to culture. For Christians, being a devout Christian is good; for Muslims, only Muslims are good. Standards of beauty have changed from decade to decade, century to century. For Greeks, homosexuality was an accepted custom, for others it is a vile sin. The list could go on indefinitely. It proves only that what one views as “good” is not at all intrinsic to the object but is a consequence of the values of the observer, his sometimes baseless opinions, and the cultural context at any given time.

When people identify certain qualities of a person as evil, anyone who is marked with these qualities is considered evil regardless of the truth. The consequences of this prejudice are misunderstanding, cruelty and genocide. The major rituals that reenact them are warfare, racism, discrimination, exclusion and group conflict. More benevolent examples are competitive sports, your city against mine, your friends against mine, etc.

In philosophy, the broader concept that includes the good/evil paradigm is a concept called moral dualism. Moral dualism holds that good and evil are eternally co-existent as two opposite principles that will battle each other forever. Man was seen as an element of the evil aspect of the dualism, possessing intrinsically evil characteristics, but who could yet strive for the good and contribute, through his struggle against himself, to the forces of good.

An idea like moral dualism has a tremendous impact on the individual because it presents a simplified and easy-to-understand method for judging both reality and the moral stature of other people. Those who take the metaphysical and moral implications of moral dualism seriously often become storm troopers for their cause, never knowing that the very idea of moral dualism is false. It is the power of the idea, the intense reaction to what is considered evil and the difficulty for religious man of being good that gives this paradigm its power to destroy through conflict and misunderstanding.

Another form of the good/evil paradigm is expressed in the dichotomy of “faith vs. reason,” where faith is deemed the good and reason is considered evil. By this view, faith is considered superior because it is faith in god, which has always been synonymous with intrinsic good. Reason is considered evil because it involves understanding the real world that is considered inferior.

This division of faith vs. reason sends the individual on a false quest toward a “goodness” that ignores not only the requirements of survival but reality itself. Further, it sets up a false sense of superiority among the “faithful” that says, “Don’t denigrate our faith. Don’t trample on religion. Don’t disagree. Appease us because we are the good and if you don’t you will be considered evil.” (See Muslim radicals for a clear example of this fallacy – where the intensities of their petty emotions are deemed so powerful and true that they are supposed to be blindly accommodated by the world – or else) At worst, it makes of every individual a hypocrite for doing what survival requires such as learning about nature and getting a job.

When objects or people are viewed as either intrinsically good or evil, the judgments that result can only be illusory. A key example is the religionists’ insistence on labeling disagreement and dissent from their views as a conspiracy of the devil. This approach conveniently disenfranchises honest dissent, turning people who disagree with faith-based ideas into powerful “demons” intent on undermining God. The most valid and rational of arguments are conveniently dismissed by this “straw man” approach that creates nothing but prejudice and misunderstanding among men. The current argument that “secularists,” as defined by evangelists, are part of the devil’s conspiracy to destroy God is an excellent example of how evangelists deceptively use the good/evil paradigm to defeat opposition in the minds of their followers without having to debate the issues raised in these debates.

Many “news analysts” in our public media use the good/evil paradigm as a way of steamrolling public opinion in favor of their agendas and goals. The method consists of creating an issue that is stoked up by means of propaganda, political spin and selective interpretation of selected facts in order to create a frenzy of selective anger and outrage among the public. Politicians, eager to follow public opinion use this “outrage” to increase their own power by creating laws and regulations that are designed to ostensibly bring about the “solution” offered by the news analysts. This is not the pursuit of truth but the establishment of bigotry against innocent people who have been branded by the news analysts with the mark of evil. Such manipulations are Nazi-style tactics designed to force action in spite of honest disagreement and in complete disregard for the victims that are demonized and destroyed.

Journalist Bill O’Reilly,[4] in particular, uses this technique, and in spite of the fact that he poses as an opponent of political spin – his method is a form of political spin. This method always creates a dichotomy of good victims vs. evil haters, one the presumed evil, the other the stoked up victim. Examples include courtroom decisions vs. victims of child sexual abuse and Mexicans seeking freedom vs. national security lapses.

On these issues, O’Reilly unfairly victimizes courtroom judges and Mexicans by dishonestly positioning them against children and national security. Judges will always make decisions we do not like, especially if we are on the losing end of the decision, but they are responsible for considering all the facts and making decisions as honestly as they can. Yes, they are very often wrong, sometimes basing their decisions on false premises or ideology, but not so often that we can posit a progressive conspiracy in the judiciary. And, more importantly, there is no conspiracy among judges to harm children. As well, Mexicans seeking freedom in this country, especially when the laws are discriminatory and the government is inept, have nothing to do with national security. The racist treatment toward them is unfair and unbecoming of a nation of immigrants. To say that they are breaking the law is to disregard the fact that the law itself is unfair – much the same way that prohibition was unfair in the ‘20s. Prohibition was eventually repealed because it was a bad law that forced people to violate it.

To modern day mystics, the “good” is represented by spiritualism, accessible only through the deepest contemplation of the word of God. The evil is represented by such things as this world, the flesh and carnal pleasure and is accessible merely by engaging in “disgusting” carnal activities. The difference is that between the sacred and the profane as defined by religious authorities. To these people, the individual cannot rely on his senses (since the senses are of the flesh and imperfect), and he must engage a process of spiritual growth in order to finally attain sacred wisdom or perfection. All of this is pure rationalism, the basing of one’s understanding of reality on unfounded ideas, mere words in a book, that have little to do with the real world.

Spiritualism is “sold” to people through propaganda that glorifies the effort to reach material denial. Yet, the value of accomplishing things in this world goes unacknowledged and unappreciated. This “value deprivation” destroys man’s connection to his nature as a being that has confidence in his senses and his unique capacity to think. This also establishes the ritualized denigration of human pleasure and gives the religious person a whole host of “evils” to fight such as demons and rich people and other “sinners.” Hatred of the ego is thereby given additional destructive power to ruin men’s happiness by calling the attainment of pleasure and wealth guilty sins.

The good/evil paradigm sends men into a ritualized dead end where they serve merely as the pawns of the mystics, seers and priests in pursuing the “illusion of wisdom.” There has never been a proof of why the so-called “spiritual” world is superior in any way to the real world. In fact, an exaggerated focus upon the “spiritual” makes the person incapable of surviving on this earth. To postulate this world as somehow inferior is to tell men to neglect their self-responsibility and turns men into mindless dependents that would starve if there were no other people around to exploit.

As we’ve discussed, the good/evil paradigm is based upon the belief that the universe is essentially a struggle of good versus evil. Anything associated with matter or the “real” world is evil by nature and must be fought. Anything associated with the gods or spirit is essentially good and must be strived for. Further, religionists also assert that anything associated with the real world is dirty, sinful, atrocious and base; a belief that essentially destroys the value of reality and thought so thoroughly that many past “saints” are revered for renouncing the real world and choosing to live in caves without bathing and necessary hygiene. They were considered to be men of the highest perfection although maggots littered their hair and a stench permeated their bodies.

One can imagine in a primitive society, that is soon to select a scapegoat who will be chosen for sacrifice in order to appease a vengeful god, that if a young person was seen by his parents to be too happy, too beautiful or too self-confident, that the parent may have feared that they would lose their child if someone else saw them. They may have reprimanded the child and done everything they could to make the child change his happy countenance by means of criticism, even maiming of the child in order that he not appear to be ripe for the sacrifice. One could even understand why the parents would do such a thing to their beautiful child – it was a matter of life and death for the child. However, today, when we don’t kill our most beautiful in a deadly ritual, there is no excuse for the turmoil that many people experience because others think that he appears to be too good, too beautiful or too intelligent.

When the cultural gargantuan tells a young person that he is immoral because he is man, how is he to find a sense of being good morally? If he does not completely reject the views of religion, he can only embark on a path of appeasement to convince others that he is good. This leads to the ritual of altruism and self-sacrifice as in primordial religious rites where one beautiful individual was chosen to die for the group. In modern ritual, the individual, every individual, must engage a process of appeasement of others, of pretending that he is good and of wondering how he is going to survive – since he is not supposed to be selfish.

The good/evil paradigm is the clear cause of warfare and genocide. According to this view, those who are warred against and killed must be considered to be the most evil malefactors of all, people who defy God’s laws and do not deserve to live. This is why periods of religious wars were the most deadly in our history. The act of judging our enemies as intrinsically evil is an easy way to justify killing them (The only just war is one for freedom against this kind of tyranny).

Since altruism means the consistent sacrifice of the individual on behalf of others, the good/evil paradigm neglects and even denigrates any action that is not self-sacrifice, consigning reason and reason-based action to “selfish” interests that are not worthy of moral sanction. The good/evil paradigm, when put to the service of altruism, creates a cognitive misreading of reality, a judging of people as evil because they are selfish and self-interested. Nothing causes a more sinister misunderstanding and prejudice against individuals than this assignment of evil to selfishness.

Yet, religious leaders do not see hatred as a component of their view of man. They have convinced themselves that the tenets of altruism and collectivism are benign, gentle premises intent on encouraging man to love his neighbor and do good. Indeed, it is considered a truism by many people that in the realm of humanity, life is perfectly fine for the religious person without something as rigid and tyrannical as logic and clear thinking. Yet, I ask: What are the causes of man’s unhappiness? Are they not that man is confused, ignorant and incapable of understanding the world? Are they not that man is forbidden by the good/evil paradigm to use reason because they have damned it as evil?

We interpret the value of others according to our view of man. If one prejudges people according to the premises of the good/evil paradigm, one will come to see people as either “good” or “evil.” This means that once we accept the markers associated with “good” people and “bad” people we will view people in a distorted, prejudiced way. In turn, this colors our attitudes and how we respond to them as individuals. This is a prescription for paranoia and conflict.

In addition, “to do good” by the standard of the good/evil paradigm is a false quest even on the terms of the good/evil paradigm, but especially in terms of the requirements of reality. To go “Beyond Good and Evil[5]” is nothing more than embracing a definition of evil (doing harm and manipulating others) and deciding that such is really the good. Conversely, to properly accept the “requirements of reality” and “survival” as the standard of the good is to make possible a morality of survival rather than one of intrinsic “good vs. evil.” This makes it possible for man to act in appropriate ways toward himself, nature and other men. Only upon a proper, rational standard can man ask how he should conduct himself in order to maintain self-interest, cooperation and freedom. The correct question in morality, for man, is “Do I think correctly in order to live well?”

The Suffering Savior

The Suffering Savior and its related concepts in mythology represent a broad spectrum of ancient cultural institutions and messages. The penis, the pillar, the mountain of god, the magic mountain, the bull, etc., are only a few of the more primitive concepts that relate to the Suffering Savior paradigm. The early forms of this paradigm are used to refer to male power, rising up in life, touching god (as with Prometheus), and later vanity, Prometheus fallen, punished and crucified for arrogance. Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Christ and a host of other suffering gods are related to this concept. Indeed, this is one of the most powerful paradigms because of its early (now forgotten) association with male sexuality, human striving and success.

It is considered by religious people to be a foregone conclusion that man should spend his life sacrificing for others if he is to have a moral life. This authority comes directly from God through such revelations as “The Sermon on the Mount” and other statements of his ordained representatives. Sacrificial rites demanded that one individual could be “given” up to the god of devastation so that the god might be satisfied and leave the rest to survive. This is the essential act that Jesus emulated in his own self-sacrifice but before Jesus there were a host of other gods who did essentially the same thing. Yet gods, demons or social injunctions are not practical, verifiable justifications for the idea that man should sacrifice himself for others. Religious authorities claimed the right to tell us what God said and their authority came from their claims that God spoke to them. In truth, that authority amounts only to the statement, “Do it because we say so.”

Whenever you hear someone say, “Isn’t it good to help others or sacrifice for others? Who would question that?” it is a lesson in the power of entrenched ideas. That Jesus sacrificed for mankind is almost universally considered to be a moral act. But few people have thought to ask who has the authority to claim that it is moral to sacrifice the best for the sake of the rest. And that is the crucial question that needs to be asked in order for man to be liberated from the onus of sacrificing his production and life.

In mythology, Lucifer and Prometheus were both punished by god. Lucifer thought he was good enough to touch god and Prometheus had the effrontery to bring god’s light to the world. Both were acts of the ego and both acts were the reason for their punishment. Lucifer was cast down to be the torturer and misleader of men as the devil while Prometheus was tied to a tree and crucified while vultures ate his liver. As reflected in the Mystery religions, the message of punishment of the rebellious god, then punishment of the initiate as a stand in for the god was intended as an allegory that led to a reenactment of a clear moral message: that man deserved to suffer and was doomed to hatred and vengeance from the gods. The individual, in this context, has no recourse, no justification and no reason to defend himself against this onslaught of hatred and negativity. The only “appropriate” response for the properly ritualized person is to play the role of the suffering savior as a moral code.

In a context where self-sacrifice is considered a virtue, there is no hope of a morality that says the individual should live for his own benefit – the individual is sentenced to feel only the gray, debilitating fatigue and boredom found in doing what “must be done” for the sake of others.

There are a variety of gods and myths that represent the suffering god motif as well as resurgence, intoxication and rebirth. They represent a group of stories about a god who was once a man, who as a boy grew larger and engaged an adventure, the labyrinth, to meet and/or touch god. Along his path to god, he encountered many creatures and overcame many obstacles.[6] At one point, he appeared to hold the world on his shoulders but eventually, he fell from being a symbol of success, power and ambition to one who was punished by god for vanity. Almost always he is regarded as a protector or benefactor of man, one who helped him in some way and was punished by god for doing so.

Lucifer means Light bringer and we know Prometheus was considered a light bringer. A relevant observation is made by Wheless while he is describing Mithraism, a pre-Christian religion, and quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"In many ways one of the most remarkable demonologies is that presented in the Avesta"; Ahriman being their chief devil, or Daeva; "the original meaning of the word is 'shining one,' and it comes from a primitive Aryan root div, which is likewise the source of the Greek Zeus and the Latin Deus. But while these words, like the Sanskrit deva, retain the good meaning, daeva has come to mean 'an evil spirit.' There is at least a coincidence, if no deeper significance,' in the fact that, while the word in its original sense was synonymous with 'Lucifer,' it has now come to mean much the same as devil" (CE. iv, 714-15, pasism; 764). Lucifer, in the Bible, having also been originally "a shining one"' in Heaven, was cast out into Hell and is now the Devil.”[7]

I find it ironic that the original example of the suffering savior, Lucifer, who was punished and cast into Hell is also one of the sources for his alter ego today: Jesus.

It is presumed that our modern age is an age of Prometheus because men seek knowledge (light) and wear brilliant rings on their fingers to commemorate Prometheus’ gift of intelligence. However, this is merely cultural window dressing. In fact, this age has become affluent in spite of views that denigrate and punish intelligence. Prometheus certainly has been honored for bringing intelligence to man. But with that honor there is a warning given by cultural leaders: “Be careful lest your foresight be flawed. You cannot tell what pain and suffering your knowledge will bring.”

These two figures (Lucifer and Prometheus), not to mention their many stand ins such as Samson, Hercules, Adonis, Osiris and Jesus, represent a very important principle for modern society that has gone virtually unnoticed. It is seen in our culture’s attitude toward pride and the individual, in the antipathy we exhibit toward anyone who would presume to think for himself and succeed. The enemy for our culture is the ego that does not sacrifice but stands alone. The principle is hatred of the ego and it is one of the most illogical and harmful principles of modern society.

As we will discuss later, a ritual is an act based upon emulating the lives of the gods. A ritual consists of doing the same things the god did. In the case of the suffering savior the ritual is the act of sacrifice. Many of the suffering gods have been depicted as being tied to a tree, nailed on a cross and otherwise suffering the worst, most painful punishment for the act of angering Zeus or Yahweh. Such a crucifixion involved, not only excruciating pain but also a period of doubt and individual questioning where the suffering savior asks himself what it is about his nature that makes him suffer for an unappreciative mankind. This questioning is the ego of the savior wondering why he suffers, why he deserves to suffer and questioning the nature of his own self. The implication of this part of the myth is that mankind not only suffers for what he does, but also undergoes a strict violent attack upon his ego, his very self. There is virtually no person today who has been successful in some way who does not experience the same questioning and pain because of the constant attack of his ego by culture and peers. Jesus suffered because he claimed to be the son of God, Prometheus because he stole Zeus’ fire and gave it to man. These were ambitious acts indicative of unique and rare individuals.

The ego is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary[8] as “The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.” and “An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.” and “Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.” That the ego also means for most people an “exaggerated self-importance” does not express the fact that the ego also includes appropriate pride and any quality that seeks the better.

Let’s take a look at the ego within the context of the ancient mystery rites. These rituals involved the participation of the initiate who played the role of the suffering god. As Freke and Grandy write of the Greeks,

“Each year some 30,000 Athenian citizens embarked on a 30-kilometer barefoot pilgrimage to the sacred site of Eleusis on the coast to celebrate the autumn Mysteries of Dionysus. For days they would have been preparing for this important religious event by fasting, offering sacrifices, and undergoing ritual purification. As those about to be initiated danced along the “Sacred Way” to Eleusis, accompanied by the frenzied beat of cymbals and tambourines, they were accosted by masked men who abused and insulted them, while others beat them with sticks.”[9]

The very idea of suffering and being punished as an initiation into the Mystery cults is indicative of the entire motif that the initiate was a personification of the suffering god.

In this example, we see the genesis of the hatred and punishment of the ego. Though we don’t blatantly kill people for it today, intelligence (light) is often viewed as worthy of ridicule in many circles. In addition, intelligent people have the capabilities that enable them to be successful and this is an affront to those of lesser ability. Extremely successful people have, in the opinion of religionists, something evil about them since they have accumulated more wealth than they need (why not take it away from them? say the looters and the state). Extreme beauty is also considered egoistic where the beautiful person is most often seen as too worthy of success so no success is granted (such beautiful people compete against us normal people). Successful businesses are ridiculed and attacked by politicians as evil and predatory in order to validate an effort to loot or shake them down. The result is a society of millions of mediocrities that have been leveled and brought down to size. Many are leveled in childhood by jealous parents, envious peers and self-righteous authorities of all kinds. Such is the method by which the Suffering Savior paradigm inflicts it lesson on individuals.

Today, humans are driven to misunderstand their own motives and the motives of others by means of the ritualized hatred of individuality and ambition. It is easy to do: see pride in a young person and pounce upon it with anger, hatred and ridicule, just as did the men in the masks in the Mystery rituals. The fact that there is no foundation in reality, no reason to hate the ego is barely considered or debated because it is assumed that the ego is to be stopped, punished and hated. People who would consider it wrong and cruel to stop an animal from taking the action through which it survives have no compunction about ridiculing man for doing the same.

The key argument against the ego and human pride is that these concepts put man first. Jones tells us of Christianity, “But Jesus began with God, not with man. For him the good life consisted in pleasing God, not in developing to its full the form “man.” This is why Jesus felt that pride was such a grievous sin—to be proud was to be self-centered when one ought to be God-centered.”[10] With this view, we have the essential basis of rationalism, the founding of human virtue upon spiritual concepts that have no physical, objective referents. The result is that man has no motivation toward action that relates to man or to any standard that can be established by a reference to the real world.

For the religious among the Greeks, the gods were vengeful and it was important not to encourage their anger by distinguishing oneself in some way. Other cultures called it fear of the evil eye. This idea is still active today and many of us fear the ire of others when we rise in station. In fact, definitions of what are considered good and evil have developed as an outgrowth of ancient attitudes toward success and failure, with success being considered a characteristic of the evil.

These tenets today go by the name of altruism, a term coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who was also the founder of the philosophy known as Positivism.[11] Altruism was not only the unnamed lesson of the Mystery rites but today it is the clearly stated lesson for everyday religious and social life; it is the injunction that every moment of life must be lived for others, every thought should be of others and it is evil to think of yourself first.

Presumably, hatred of the ego, seeks to punish excessively assertive, harmful behavior; but the pronouncements of many altruists reveal that the aim is really to destroy benevolent pride in accomplishment. Because of this, many people don’t know what acts to champion, so they compromise on achievement. Some of them desire achievement but feel guilty for it and take no pride publicly for the achievements they reach, lest the evil eye of envy jinx their success. The result is stilted success, hidden, guilty pride and suppressed genius.

Email the author

[1] http://www.temple.edu/classics/dramaterms.html

[2] (dth´rm) (KEY) , in ancient Greece, hymn to the god Dionysus, choral lyric with exchanges between the leader and the chorus. It arose, probably, in the extemporaneous songs of the Dionysiac festivals and was developed (according to tradition, by Arion) into the literary form to be found, for example, in the dithyrambs of Bacchylides. In its later development by such poets as Philoxenus and Timotheus it became freer in its meter and more musical. The tragedy seems to have come out of the dithyramb, but the dithyramb was also cultivated after tragedy was invented.

See A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy, and Comedy (1927, repr. 1962).

http://www.bartleby.com/65/di/dithyram.html

[3] The Greeks and Greek Civilization by Jacob Burckhardt, edited by Oswyn Murray, Translated by Sheila Stern. St. Martin’s Griffin.

[4] Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor

[5] Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

[6] See Hamlet’s Mill by De Santillana and Von Dechend

[7] Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of Christian Religion, by Joseph Wheless, page 27, Kessinger Publishing

[9] The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Three Rivers Press, soft cover, page 19

[10] A History of Western Philosophy Volume 2 The Medieval Mind by W. T. Jones, Harcourt, Brace & World

[11] "The greatest problem, then, is to raise social feeling by artificial effort to the position which in the natural condition is held by selfish feeling."

We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Diners Club and Discover Card.

Paradigm	Target	Morality	Ritual
Good/evil	All humans	Moral dualism	War, conflict, prejudice
The Chorus	All humans	Fear the group	Altruism, appeasement, social joining, social leveling
The Suffering Savior	Successful humans / pride	Promethean Justice	Altruism, hatred of the ego

Chapter 2. Modern Cultural Paradigms

The Chorus

The Good/Evil Paradigm

The Suffering Savior