The Spanish conquistadores arrived in the capital city of the Aztec empire, Mexico, in 1519. They found a well-structured society and an orderly government centred around a national religion involving constant human sacrifice. The purpose of this massive bloodshed was to appease the many Aztec gods. The state's continued prosperity, rain and harvest for the coming season were believed to be dependent on pleasing both the benevolent and malevolent gods. Here we see the sacrificial surrender of part of the community to unseen gods; a surrender of part of the nation in an effort to gain favour for the rest of the people.

There is a dependency factor, a deviant need to sacrifice, and an element of self-abnegation, running through all theistic religions. There is an inferred requirement that believers sacrifice part of themselves to their religious organization, philosophy and god. Because god cannot be observed, but nevertheless conceived as always present, ageless and powerful, he becomes a static object of uncertainty, hope or fear. It is therefore reasoned that the god must be appeased or influenced by prayer to assist in matters normally beyond the control of human endeavour.

We see this clearly in the Jewish religion in their fear of and devotion to Yahweh, their god. As a nation, their livelihood was dependent on animal husbandry. They therefore sacrificed sheep and goats as atonement for their sins. Any military reversal or disaster of a national or personal kind was blamed by their prophets on the nation's forgetfulness of Yahweh. The usual result was an increase in sacrifices and devotional commitment. The Jewish history, as recorded in their sacred texts, repeatedly refers to the appeasement of Yahweh by the sacrifice of animals.

The monotheistic Jewish religionists built up sacred rituals identical in purpose and parallel in practice to those of the polytheistic priests of the Aztec empire as found by the Spanish conquistadores in 1519. There is no real difference between them. A modern New Zealand Maori, Dun Mihaka, makes a similar statement in his book "Ki Te Whei-ao, Ki te ao-marama".

"For a period of time I declared myself a Christian convert. But that too proved to be a futile exercise ... I found that the monotheistic nature of Christianity and the traditional polytheism of my antecedents were different only in the timing of their historical emergence. But in so far as the reactionary feudal master-servant, father in heaven, complete obedience..., they were identical."

Christian doctrine broadly followed the same Judaistic concepts of an exacting god who demanded to be worshipped. The New Testament regards all people as innately sinful and in need of salvation. God, however, is now seen more as a father figure, responding to his followers. Underlying this gentler approach, is a demand that his precepts, as understood to be presented in the Old and New Testament, be obeyed.

The main difference between the Jewish faith and Christianity is that instead of an endless slaughter of sheep and goats, Jesus Christ became the sacrifice for all time and for all people. "Behold the lamb of god which taketh away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). More than any other sacred text, the New Testament is obsessed with sin and finding a way to avoid the rejection of an almighty god. He is said to cast all those who do not bow themselves before him into hell. You can equate the Biblical understanding of the word sin with disobeying the teachings of the Bible.

The sacrifice of Jesus does not relieve Christian disciples of the need to surrender part of themselves, so that they may maintain the continued favour of their god. A subtle element of subjugation, self-denying humility and masochism becomes evident. Christians kneel to pray, bow their heads and give of their time and substance. Some churches require their followers to withhold association with 'non-believers'. Many refrain from eating certain foods. Some demand a set percentage of earnings to be given to their Church. All true Christian believers become subservient to their faith and accept its authority in the hope of personally gaining a blissfullife in a next world, a notion very similar to Islamic thinking.

Holy places, holy days, holy pilgrimages, holy acts and persons abound in all theistic religions. Each believer is pursuing his or her own masochistic faith of submission in the hope of pleasing the god or gods of the particular religion.

The question arises, why do human beings humble themselves in ritualised masochism? What is the other side of the coin? What benefit do they gain from dependency on the favours of a god spirit?

RL.Berger in his book "The Social Reality of Religion" makes a wise statement,

"Man cannot accept aloneness and he cannot accept meaninglessness, the masochistic surrender is an attempt to escape aloneness by absorption in an other, who is at the same time posited as the only absolute meaning."

I suggest that there is a double absorption, firstly into the friendly and usually exclusive community of fellow believers and secondly and of equal importance, into the believed favour and protection of the god spirit. The notion of a hereafter in a gentle heaven or future state of being, gives a goal and meaning to the actions and pursuits of the believer. Believers become interested in something outside their mundane earthly experience. They have a new purpose in life, to build up credit for themselves in the next world.

Dependency is central to all theistic religions. Each believer is seeking to gain an advantage by approaching god through faith in some sacrificial act or acts of self-abnegation. This will involve gifts of time and substance of many varieties. In an adult person such behaviour really constitutes a dependency neurosis.

The position of dependency on a god strongly resembles the experiences of the pre-adolescent child; a state of emotional seeking of comfort from a mother church and approval from a father god. This idea was first suggested by Sigmund Freud as a result of his analytical work. People spend approximately one quarter of their lives subject to the security and authority of their parents. There remains a conscious or unconscious craving for the same kind of pre-adolescent family comfort and security. It is now expected to be provided by a parent god. Hence the appeal of a belief in an almighty father god. If by chance the hoped for magical results of prayer occur, they are hailed as an answer by god to the request of his people. If they do not appear, the failure is excused in the same manner as an obedient child will accept that the parents know best. The punishing and rewarding god of the Jewish faith is still there.

The expectations of a religious person of benefit from a powerful superhuman force are very similar to the expectations of the shaman who seeks to manipulate the unseen forces of chance by ritualised magic. They strongly suggest a childhood mentality, a dependency on someone else to provide or approve. Surely human beings can now grow up. Many of us have passed the adolescent stage. It is time we took responsibility for ourselves. It is time we broke away from the mythological gods of our ancient past. We do not need to be kept in order by the belief system of punishment or reward. When we depend on something or someone outside ourselves, we revert to a childhood dependence which includes obedience. In other words we take on a subservient position which is less than appropriate for a mature adult.

Peace which is dependent on belief in another person or religion is a dependent peace. Personal peace has its strength in self knowledge, self identity, sense of personal worth and positive personal regard. The centre of maturity is always found in self awareness, the inner knowledge that "I'm O.K." Shakespeare had it right when he said,

"This above all: to thine own self be true. And it must follow, as the night the day. Thou canst not then be false to any man."