Remembered or Utilized. ?
Never in the history of mankind has so much been made of what is technically nor more than the sort of scant information behind a great many dubious cults. Divine books not written with human hands. Words from nowhere. Inspirations and messages. All have contributed to what we call faith in a figure associated with what a greal many people call God who defies all descriptions and in the main is above everything including direct contact.
This is the essence of it all – divinity which can be blended into all the religions of the world except for those that stand for the opposite like the Devil and even then in some religions both within the one entity. This peculiar state of things is behind most of the problems of the world today and not least of all, because religion, God and his mortal messengers, are in the main utilized to keep people together for economic reasons and not necessarily in their own interests.
In some very poor countries, religion has become a basis for maintaining the poor happy with their lot and therfore gentle subservient cheap labout and what is more disquieting, accepting violation of body and mind as part of the suffering to be expected and tolerated in the name of faith. This is abundantly obvious to the point of turning the preacher today in a messenger not of Gods, but the pawn of economic interests totally unrelated to the essence of the religion they preach. Despite the claims made by major religions of the uniqueness of their own faiths and the need to follow its teachings, none of them aspire to even remotely make an honest effort to educate their followers in the ways of moral or ethical values that could eradicate the gruesome conflict that leads young people to suicide and others to provoke violence through their attempt to convert. Worse of all, the religions in the main offer little hope for a successful and happy life, merely helping, with banal words, to soften the blows of suffering and promises to stand by them when they reach the other end. Most intelligent people today do not beleive in the teachings of their religious leaders other than subscribe to them as a form of social protection for fear of alienation. Not a very good state of affairs. Perhaps therefore, it would be a good thing to take a closer look at the nature of the whole business and look with some honesty at the people whose names are invoked in the process.
Is there such a thing as mortal representatives of a being of another dimension who actually watches over us good and bad and keeps his distance with a view to letting us sort it all out ? Hardly.
There is absolutely nothing that suggests either morally, scientifically or academically that a glimpse has been caught in one way or another that there is anything approximately any possibility of there being anything called God. Least of all when the type of people who propagate it are looked at with any degree of objectivity. That there should be a God, I have not doubt. That I would like one to be there in view of the injustice and depravity of modern societies, yes. But that such a thing could actually exist viewing all religions in context. No. This does not mean however, that people like Jesus and Mohammed in recent times and Moses and Buddha or …….
were not Divinely inspired. In fact so they were if we look back on the impact they had on their societies but we can say the same thing about the great philosphers and thinkers of the ages. Divine inspiration, if the means carrying a message from God to the people, is not food for thought. However if it means that the person was inspired to the point of creating a following that later became religious then both Jesus and Mohammed and indeed all the others including Mithras for example, were Divinely inspired. There are many differences between these figures which are beyond the scope of this particular article. Jesus for example, despite all the stories written about him, is not clear historically, but Mohammed beleived in him and respected him. And so he would if he was a Nazrim like Boabdil of Granada, members of a religious body that went back thousands of years and to whose central Deity, the first born had to be sacrificed either physically as happened to Isaacs interpretation, or symbolically in the form of priesthood. That in effect is probably what unites both Mohammed and Jesus who belonged to the same ideological body of historic beliefs but who were both to become what is technically called a Messiah or warring prophet – each with their own followers. Both wanted to create a new world based on the ancient roots of their ancestral tribes. Both wanted to collected and reunite their scattered sheep and both did it in ways that only historically we begin to understand in their complexities. There is nothing in either the teachings of Mohammed or Jesus which suggests that they were anything other than Prophets who preached love and tolerance. If Mohammed went to war it was because in his own mind and that of his people he was protecting their interests, their way of life and their territories. It had nothing to do with creating a religion. That came later in the same way as it did with Jesus. In fact, the beliefs of the Prophet Mohammed were those of Jesus and it can in many ways be said that he was a Christian, except that the word does not mean much to anyone other than those who hold that Jesus was eithr God or in some way, the son of God – something that a man like Jesus would have not understood.
All that has been attributed to Mohammed or Jesus can be attributed to all the well known names of past giants of religious history, like Mithras and even that of Hermes, much adored within Rosicrucian circles as a great Prophet of Divine Status. The same is not said of Moses who was considered human enough to have to die as a result of his negligence and not allowed to enter the new earthly kingdom of Canaan. We do not have as a result a religion called Mosian and the Jewish people stand for Judahish meaning descendants of Judah and it is not a religion as such but a people with reliogious beliefs which is a different story altogether. Neither Islam nor Christianity has anything to do with Judaism since both were concerned with the ancient tribes of Israel which were a separate thing to the tribe of Judea and had its origins in the ancient kingdom of Saba – a fact verifiable from the mere understanding that both David and Solomon or Daud and Sol Amon were married to Sabaens. The background to the religious understandings of Mohammed and Jesus is in the wide variety of concepts which have little to do with the very specific religious morality of the Jewish people. One concept alone, throws Jesus out of the window and that is the question of vengeance which is at the heart of the Jewish training in the Tallion Law. Jesus was obviously not a Jew and never lived in Jerusalem. He was in fact very much against the comercialisation of religion through the concept of a central meeting point like the Temple at Jerusalem to which payments were made by followers throughout their lives. In this aspect, Islam as it is taught today, has a great deal in common with Judaism and also in the ancient Shariah law that the Jewish people practiced but which was not in force in either Samaria or Gallillee where Jesis was apparently well known. Christians learn through what they call The New Testament how he rescued a woman from stoning – a barbaric act of the highest order which it is difficult to associate with either the gentle Jesus or Mohammed who was a man of great intelligence and sensitivity. Mohammed in fact, was responsible for the restoration and historical remembrance of the ancient church at Mecca with the stone that belonged to the people of Anatolia who worshipped a Godess called Cybeles. If showed a little of his great respect for history and religious sites which is now incorporated into the important relationships of Islam. The inside of the Kaaba has now been opened and photographed to show its internal fittings and which demonstrate that another form of religion was practiced in tht place. There is also a body of academic knowledge which suggests that Abraham himself attended a shrine marked with the symbol of the dove.
Jesus himself, is not as fully documented as Mohammed who is a genuine historical figure full of writings of the period which attest to his reality. The same is not the case with Jesus, who is really a figment of the imagination of a number of so called writers who could have been brought together by someone who intended to create the myth.