Has the ordinary Christian not learned long ago how to pray in the spirit of unselfishness? Has not Christ, through "The Lord's Prayer", given him a magnificent example of how a perfect cosmic prayer, that is, a prayer which can only benefit everyone and harm no one, should be? Is it not, in its innermost being, collective, promoting with the well-being of everyone? With this prayer does not the suppliant make himself one with his surroundings or his neighbour? Who else is he thinking of when he says "our" and "us"? Yes, true enough – the Christians have an ingenious model for the perfect prayer; but, even so, it does not cover everything they privately want or feel compelled to pray for. They have not yet become one with all humanity to such a high level that their own "private" troubles are subordinate or unimportant in relation to those of all humanity. And it is in this, their struggle and distress brought about by their drive for self-preservation, that they resort to prayer as a weapon or a means whereby they hope to be able to forestall, in a miraculous way, all the many dark experiences which have accumulated in their fate.
      But here one must bear in mind that the common Christian conception of and attitude towards the dark experiences of life has up till now been based on the belief that these are "punishments" from Providence for "sins" which have been committed. They therefore feel themselves in the presence of an "angry" Godhead. Their view of the Godhead has not yet become illuminated by the bright sunshine of intellectuality. They are still hindered to a great extent by primitive Man's ignorance of the real structure of life itself. It is a matter of course that the supposed originator of the suffering and trouble in their destiny must be a being like themselves who lives according to the laws which exist within their own primitive, day-conscious horizon. They are ignorant of any other higher forms of manifesting the life of the consciousness than their own, which is almost entirely based on revenge and punishment, favours and caresses. They therefore find it immensely difficult to understand a level of consciousness from which revenge, punishment and special favours are completely excluded and where only a one hundred per cent love is dominant. It is therefore only natural for them to assume that the dark experiences in their destiny can be nothing but "punishment" by a Deity. This superstition is so deeply rooted that it could not be destroyed or removed even by the life of Christ, his life being a living demonstration that such a consciousness filled with love really does exist. Was he not precisely the revelation of a state of high intellectuality in which one neither hates nor punishes? Well, did he not turn the right cheek when he was hit on the left and did he not pray for his tormentors amidst his sufferings on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"? Does one not believe his mission culminated here? Does one not believe that here God's own special state of consciousness was revealed? Does one not believe that is was here that the world-redeemer was the model of the perfect man to come "in the image of God after His likeness"? No, that was not believed. The primitive concept of God was so strong that nineteen centuries were yet to elapse before it really began to lose its grip on the mental life of mankind. Yes, even today, thousands of beings are employed around the Christian world as this Godhead's state-authorised ministers in order to preach "prayer" and "absolution".
      As "absolution" can only be the same as "exemption from punishment", and as "punishment", in the absolute sense of the word, can only be revenge – revenge being an expression of anger – this Godhead of the Christians is still a God of anger. Indeed, this God was even so angry with "sinful" humanity that, according to the above-mentioned superstition, only the crucifixion or the suffering and death of Christ was able to appease him and, so exempt humanity from punishment. Only by this innocent being taking upon himself, for his heavenly father, the "punishment" for the "sins" committed by all the people in the world, and for those "sins" they were going to commit in the future, could this Godhead's desire for "punishment" or "revenge" on the "sinners" – on humanity – be satisfied. Would that not mean a rather hard Godhead and father but, on the other hand, a lovable son? It is no wonder that this Godhead was thrust into the background and this lovable son came into the light, the foreground of humanity's thoughts – that he was praised and worshipped as their "saviour" and that every prayer in his "name" would be sufficient to remove all obstacles or dark shadows on the road to Heaven. And this is, in fact, the structure of ecclesiastical Christianity today. And one can only say that it is fortunate that the concentration is more on the lovable son than on the rather strange father. The son's noble and perfect nature, together with his behaviour towards his enemies and persecutors, has thus not escaped the attention of the faithful. Indeed, they have gone so far as to consider it so sublime and divine compared to their own natures that they have felt it quite inconceivable that they should be able so to develop themselves as to make such behaviour their own. They have by no means understood that this behaviour was exactly the model for their development. The result of world-redemption could therefore only be "salvation" through "grace" or the atonement of the Godhead through Jesus Christ. The result of world-redemption was not to make people aspire towards developing the behaviour of Christ within themselves and by this means, in a natural and well-deserved way, eventually attain to the Kingdom of Heaven as a result of their own diligence, their own deeds and manifestations. No, they could arrive at this sublime result in a much easier way. Indeed, the good deeds did not actually mean anything. "Salvation" or the attainment of the "Kingdom of Heaven" could only be secured by virtue of "grace" and "absolution". And the concepts of "grace" and "absolution" became a "sacrament" by the help of which the repentant "sinners" and people stricken with terror of the divine "wrath" might obtain "absolution" and avoid retribution no matter how many other beings might still be suffering or in the trouble which had been brought about by their "sinful" lives. In reality, they might thus secure for themselves entry to the glory of Heaven while their victims were still tortured by the torments and sufferings inflicted upon them. This sacrament was given its external ceremony in the form of the so-called "Holy Communion".
      As we have seen from the above, it was thus possible for the "faithful" man through "Communion" and through prayer to put an end to his bad conscience, to find peace and to get the feeling that his "trespasses were forgiven" and that he had thereby come into the good graces of the Godhead. It is a matter of course that this would give absolute peace and rest to the mind of the faithful man. But take notice of the fact that faith is an absolute necessity in order to obtain such a result. But if one does not believe, what then? "Faith" is not an act of will. It is a faculty which you either possess or do not possess. Those who do not possess this faculty cannot believe, no matter how much they want to do so. Prayer, according to ecclesiastical terminology, also demands that one must believe to have one's prayers granted. Those who cannot believe have no part whatsoever in God's "grace". They become liable to the "wrath" of the Godhead. They are "lost". They are certain of eternal torment in the flames of "Hell". "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" will be their only way of manifesting themselves in an eternal future in which "all hopes are abandoned". So austere is the ecclesiastical Christian conception of God.