Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Scapegoating

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
In his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Norman Vincent Peale once wrote, "The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." Whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, most of us cringe at the very thought of criticism. In fact, entire religions were built as a means of dealing with this psychological phenomenon.

As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 11:44:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Norman Vincent Peale once wrote, "The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." Whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, most of us cringe at the very thought of criticism. In fact, entire religions were built as a means of dealing with this psychological phenomenon.

Well I certainly agree with what Norman Vincent Peale said, and I see the evidence of it every day when I read posts on here.

People like to be seen to be right without realising that the only way they can truly be right is to accept when they are wrong and accept correction.

Whilst that is not exactly what he is speaking of it is related, because it comes of people's desire for praise.

Fortunately there are those of us who are more than happy to accept our limitations and accept the help that Jehovah provides us, via his son and holy spirit, because we know that whilst we can be wrong, he cannot be.


As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

That certainly does speak of teh core fo teh reason that Christ had to perform the sacrifice of his own body, his own earthly life so that we could be forgiven.

However in this case it is not because Jehovah is angry with us, it is because he loves us.

You see he had this idea of creating a son.

Having created his son he then decided to give his son something to love and care for, and they worked together in creating everything else.

Unfortunately a greedy Angel who wanted the love and respect that was due to him from the humans he created and gave such a magnificent home t live in and care for eternally. That Angel made himself into Devil and Satan, which are descriptions not just names.

That would have been bad enough in himself, but unfortunately Eve succumbed to his trickery, and her husband, instead of asking Jehovah to help sort the problem out, turned on his God.

That rebellion corrupted mankind too much for Jehovah to be able to use them in his plan, and also raised an issue which justice demanded had to be proven one way or another, and would take a long time to prove. Without that precedent being carefully and thoroughly set, even if Jehovah started all over again, the problem could arise all over again also.

However Jehovah wanted his original plan, so he set another plan in operation to allow him to bring mankind back to what Adam threw away.

At one point in that plan Jehovah made a covenant with Israel, and part of the "contract" the Mosaic Law, included the original scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to carry the sins into the desert.

That was designed to teach Israel that they needed a real scapegoat equal to Adam to balance out the sin Adam committed that "scapegoat" was to be his own son, sent to earth to then be sent into the wilderness that is death.

Of course the term scapegoat is now used in many different way all of which carry a similar connotation. However the true scapegoat was and is Christ.


The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.

The problem stems from the fact that the enemy who started it all, Satan, has done all he can to stop humans taking advantage of that scapegoat and eventually be brought back on plan.

To do that he created false religions, and then false Christianities. After his being kicked out of heaven and realising there was now no way he could win, he accelerated the confusion by creating many thousand false Christianities to hide the real one as well as he could.

Don't let him win in your case, Find the real one and follow it. The Bible is the roadmap, despite the fact that Satan has corrupted that as much as he was allowed to also. Jehovah wants us to win and will help us if we only ask him to.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:38:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 11:44:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Norman Vincent Peale once wrote, "The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." Whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, most of us cringe at the very thought of criticism. In fact, entire religions were built as a means of dealing with this psychological phenomenon.

Well I certainly agree with what Norman Vincent Peale said, and I see the evidence of it every day when I read posts on here.

People like to be seen to be right without realising that the only way they can truly be right is to accept when they are wrong and accept correction.

Whilst that is not exactly what he is speaking of it is related, because it comes of people's desire for praise.

Fortunately there are those of us who are more than happy to accept our limitations and accept the help that Jehovah provides us, via his son and holy spirit, because we know that whilst we can be wrong, he cannot be.


As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

That certainly does speak of teh core fo teh reason that Christ had to perform the sacrifice of his own body, his own earthly life so that we could be forgiven.

However in this case it is not because Jehovah is angry with us, it is because he loves us.

You see he had this idea of creating a son.

Having created his son he then decided to give his son something to love and care for, and they worked together in creating everything else.

Unfortunately a greedy Angel who wanted the love and respect that was due to him from the humans he created and gave such a magnificent home t live in and care for eternally. That Angel made himself into Devil and Satan, which are descriptions not just names.

That would have been bad enough in himself, but unfortunately Eve succumbed to his trickery, and her husband, instead of asking Jehovah to help sort the problem out, turned on his God.

That rebellion corrupted mankind too much for Jehovah to be able to use them in his plan, and also raised an issue which justice demanded had to be proven one way or another, and would take a long time to prove. Without that precedent being carefully and thoroughly set, even if Jehovah started all over again, the problem could arise all over again also.

However Jehovah wanted his original plan, so he set another plan in operation to allow him to bring mankind back to what Adam threw away.

At one point in that plan Jehovah made a covenant with Israel, and part of the "contract" the Mosaic Law, included the original scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to carry the sins into the desert.

That was designed to teach Israel that they needed a real scapegoat equal to Adam to balance out the sin Adam committed that "scapegoat" was to be his own son, sent to earth to then be sent into the wilderness that is death.

Of course the term scapegoat is now used in many different way all of which carry a similar connotation. However the true scapegoat was and is Christ.


The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.

The problem stems from the fact that the enemy who started it all, Satan, has done all he can to stop humans taking advantage of that scapegoat and eventually be brought back on plan.

To do that he created false religions, and then false Christianities. After his being kicked out of heaven and realising there was now no way he could win, he accelerated the confusion by creating many thousand false Christianities to hide the real one as well as he could.

Don't let him win in your case, Find the real one and follow it. The Bible is the roadmap, despite the fact that Satan has corrupted that as much as he was allowed to also. Jehovah wants us to win and will help us if we only ask him to.

If Jehovah wants His followers to win then explain why His Jehovah's Winnesses have the highest levels of mental illness, have suicides 5 to 10 times higher that other groups and have a 100 years of prophecy blunders. Even you confessed you are suicidal and take medication to control your suicidal depressions.
I know you are not allowed to read negative things about your JW cult. But others might benefit from the truth about you and the JW.

Prophecy blunders of Jehovah's Witnesses
http://www.bible.ca...

Why Jehovah"s Witnesses Have a High Mental Illness Level
http://www.eq...
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:53:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 11:44:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Norman Vincent Peale once wrote, "The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." Whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, most of us cringe at the very thought of criticism. In fact, entire religions were built as a means of dealing with this psychological phenomenon.

Well I certainly agree with what Norman Vincent Peale said, and I see the evidence of it every day when I read posts on here.

People like to be seen to be right without realising that the only way they can truly be right is to accept when they are wrong and accept correction.

Hypocrites don't know they are hypocrites.

Whilst that is not exactly what he is speaking of it is related, because it comes of people's desire for praise.

Fortunately there are those of us who are more than happy to accept our limitations and accept the help that Jehovah provides us, via his son and holy spirit, because we know that whilst we can be wrong, he cannot be.


As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

That certainly does speak of teh core fo teh reason that Christ had to perform the sacrifice of his own body, his own earthly life so that we could be forgiven.

However in this case it is not because Jehovah is angry with us, it is because he loves us.

You see he had this idea of creating a son.

Having created his son he then decided to give his son something to love and care for, and they worked together in creating everything else.

Unfortunately a greedy Angel who wanted the love and respect that was due to him from the humans he created and gave such a magnificent home t live in and care for eternally. That Angel made himself into Devil and Satan, which are descriptions not just names.

That would have been bad enough in himself, but unfortunately Eve succumbed to his trickery, and her husband, instead of asking Jehovah to help sort the problem out, turned on his God.

That rebellion corrupted mankind too much for Jehovah to be able to use them in his plan, and also raised an issue which justice demanded had to be proven one way or another, and would take a long time to prove. Without that precedent being carefully and thoroughly set, even if Jehovah started all over again, the problem could arise all over again also.

However Jehovah wanted his original plan, so he set another plan in operation to allow him to bring mankind back to what Adam threw away.

At one point in that plan Jehovah made a covenant with Israel, and part of the "contract" the Mosaic Law, included the original scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to carry the sins into the desert.

That was designed to teach Israel that they needed a real scapegoat equal to Adam to balance out the sin Adam committed that "scapegoat" was to be his own son, sent to earth to then be sent into the wilderness that is death.

Of course the term scapegoat is now used in many different way all of which carry a similar connotation. However the true scapegoat was and is Christ.


The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.

The problem stems from the fact that the enemy who started it all, Satan, has done all he can to stop humans taking advantage of that scapegoat and eventually be brought back on plan.

To do that he created false religions, and then false Christianities. After his being kicked out of heaven and realising there was now no way he could win, he accelerated the confusion by creating many thousand false Christianities to hide the real one as well as he could.

Don't let him win in your case, Find the real one and follow it. The Bible is the roadmap, despite the fact that Satan has corrupted that as much as he was allowed to also. Jehovah wants us to win and will help us if we only ask him to.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:24:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 4:53:36 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/30/2016 11:44:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Norman Vincent Peale once wrote, "The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." Whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, most of us cringe at the very thought of criticism. In fact, entire religions were built as a means of dealing with this psychological phenomenon.

Well I certainly agree with what Norman Vincent Peale said, and I see the evidence of it every day when I read posts on here.

People like to be seen to be right without realising that the only way they can truly be right is to accept when they are wrong and accept correction.

Hypocrites don't know they are hypocrites.

Whilst that is not exactly what he is speaking of it is related, because it comes of people's desire for praise.

Fortunately there are those of us who are more than happy to accept our limitations and accept the help that Jehovah provides us, via his son and holy spirit, because we know that whilst we can be wrong, he cannot be.


As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

That certainly does speak of teh core fo teh reason that Christ had to perform the sacrifice of his own body, his own earthly life so that we could be forgiven.

However in this case it is not because Jehovah is angry with us, it is because he loves us.

You see he had this idea of creating a son.

Having created his son he then decided to give his son something to love and care for, and they worked together in creating everything else.

Unfortunately a greedy Angel who wanted the love and respect that was due to him from the humans he created and gave such a magnificent home t live in and care for eternally. That Angel made himself into Devil and Satan, which are descriptions not just names.

That would have been bad enough in himself, but unfortunately Eve succumbed to his trickery, and her husband, instead of asking Jehovah to help sort the problem out, turned on his God.

That rebellion corrupted mankind too much for Jehovah to be able to use them in his plan, and also raised an issue which justice demanded had to be proven one way or another, and would take a long time to prove. Without that precedent being carefully and thoroughly set, even if Jehovah started all over again, the problem could arise all over again also.

However Jehovah wanted his original plan, so he set another plan in operation to allow him to bring mankind back to what Adam threw away.

At one point in that plan Jehovah made a covenant with Israel, and part of the "contract" the Mosaic Law, included the original scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to carry the sins into the desert.

That was designed to teach Israel that they needed a real scapegoat equal to Adam to balance out the sin Adam committed that "scapegoat" was to be his own son, sent to earth to then be sent into the wilderness that is death.

Of course the term scapegoat is now used in many different way all of which carry a similar connotation. However the true scapegoat was and is Christ.


The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.

The problem stems from the fact that the enemy who started it all, Satan, has done all he can to stop humans taking advantage of that scapegoat and eventually be brought back on plan.

To do that he created false religions, and then false Christianities. After his being kicked out of heaven and realising there was now no way he could win, he accelerated the confusion by creating many thousand false Christianities to hide the real one as well as he could.

Don't let him win in your case, Find the real one and follow it. The Bible is the roadmap, despite the fact that Satan has corrupted that as much as he was allowed to also. Jehovah wants us to win and will help us if we only ask him to.

You must love Bullproof a lot if you want to be him, poof.
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:31:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:24:50 PM, desmac wrote:
At 3/31/2016 4:53:36 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/30/2016 11:44:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Norman Vincent Peale once wrote, "The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." Whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, most of us cringe at the very thought of criticism. In fact, entire religions were built as a means of dealing with this psychological phenomenon.

Well I certainly agree with what Norman Vincent Peale said, and I see the evidence of it every day when I read posts on here.

People like to be seen to be right without realising that the only way they can truly be right is to accept when they are wrong and accept correction.

Hypocrites don't know they are hypocrites.

Whilst that is not exactly what he is speaking of it is related, because it comes of people's desire for praise.

Fortunately there are those of us who are more than happy to accept our limitations and accept the help that Jehovah provides us, via his son and holy spirit, because we know that whilst we can be wrong, he cannot be.


As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

That certainly does speak of teh core fo teh reason that Christ had to perform the sacrifice of his own body, his own earthly life so that we could be forgiven.

However in this case it is not because Jehovah is angry with us, it is because he loves us.

You see he had this idea of creating a son.

Having created his son he then decided to give his son something to love and care for, and they worked together in creating everything else.

Unfortunately a greedy Angel who wanted the love and respect that was due to him from the humans he created and gave such a magnificent home t live in and care for eternally. That Angel made himself into Devil and Satan, which are descriptions not just names.

That would have been bad enough in himself, but unfortunately Eve succumbed to his trickery, and her husband, instead of asking Jehovah to help sort the problem out, turned on his God.

That rebellion corrupted mankind too much for Jehovah to be able to use them in his plan, and also raised an issue which justice demanded had to be proven one way or another, and would take a long time to prove. Without that precedent being carefully and thoroughly set, even if Jehovah started all over again, the problem could arise all over again also.

However Jehovah wanted his original plan, so he set another plan in operation to allow him to bring mankind back to what Adam threw away.

At one point in that plan Jehovah made a covenant with Israel, and part of the "contract" the Mosaic Law, included the original scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to carry the sins into the desert.

That was designed to teach Israel that they needed a real scapegoat equal to Adam to balance out the sin Adam committed that "scapegoat" was to be his own son, sent to earth to then be sent into the wilderness that is death.

Of course the term scapegoat is now used in many different way all of which carry a similar connotation. However the true scapegoat was and is Christ.


The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.

The problem stems from the fact that the enemy who started it all, Satan, has done all he can to stop humans taking advantage of that scapegoat and eventually be brought back on plan.

To do that he created false religions, and then false Christianities. After his being kicked out of heaven and realising there was now no way he could win, he accelerated the confusion by creating many thousand false Christianities to hide the real one as well as he could.

Don't let him win in your case, Find the real one and follow it. The Bible is the roadmap, despite the fact that Satan has corrupted that as much as he was allowed to also. Jehovah wants us to win and will help us if we only ask him to.

You must love Bullproof a lot if you want to be him, poof. : :

You don't have any idea how much I love my people.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:33:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:31:18 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:24:50 PM, desmac wrote:
At 3/31/2016 4:53:36 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/30/2016 11:44:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:49:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:


Well I certainly agree with what Norman Vincent Peale said, and I see the evidence of it every day when I read posts on here.

People like to be seen to be right without realising that the only way they can truly be right is to accept when they are wrong and accept correction.

Hypocrites don't know they are hypocrites.

Whilst that is not exactly what he is speaking of it is related, because it comes of people's desire for praise.

Fortunately there are those of us who are more than happy to accept our limitations and accept the help that Jehovah provides us, via his son and holy spirit, because we know that whilst we can be wrong, he cannot be.


As a central theme found in many religions, extinct and extant, there is that which I have decidedly called the innocent victim motif, a concept founded on the idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat is an innocent victim. Whether a virgin or a christ, the innocent victim takes the place of the collective. The collective imagines God is angry with them; it believes the only way to appease an angry god is by offering an innocent victim as a sacrifice. The innocent victim represents the collective in that the members of the collective see themselves as being innocent. However, they feel God is undeservedly angry with them. The goal is not to admit their guilt but, merely, to satisfy God. If the collective felt it were guilty, it would have offered a sacrifice which truly represented the collective, being guilty, itself.

That certainly does speak of teh core fo teh reason that Christ had to perform the sacrifice of his own body, his own earthly life so that we could be forgiven.

However in this case it is not because Jehovah is angry with us, it is because he loves us.

You see he had this idea of creating a son.

Having created his son he then decided to give his son something to love and care for, and they worked together in creating everything else.

Unfortunately a greedy Angel who wanted the love and respect that was due to him from the humans he created and gave such a magnificent home t live in and care for eternally. That Angel made himself into Devil and Satan, which are descriptions not just names.

That would have been bad enough in himself, but unfortunately Eve succumbed to his trickery, and her husband, instead of asking Jehovah to help sort the problem out, turned on his God.

That rebellion corrupted mankind too much for Jehovah to be able to use them in his plan, and also raised an issue which justice demanded had to be proven one way or another, and would take a long time to prove. Without that precedent being carefully and thoroughly set, even if Jehovah started all over again, the problem could arise all over again also.

However Jehovah wanted his original plan, so he set another plan in operation to allow him to bring mankind back to what Adam threw away.

At one point in that plan Jehovah made a covenant with Israel, and part of the "contract" the Mosaic Law, included the original scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to carry the sins into the desert.

That was designed to teach Israel that they needed a real scapegoat equal to Adam to balance out the sin Adam committed that "scapegoat" was to be his own son, sent to earth to then be sent into the wilderness that is death.

Of course the term scapegoat is now used in many different way all of which carry a similar connotation. However the true scapegoat was and is Christ.


The problem with this is: In which way would the collective go about selecting a deserving individual? Would the collective sacrifice the worst of its members?

In doing so, some members of the collective would decide other members or strangers were worse than them. In fact, the very act of condemning others demands a sanctimonious or a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the accusers. Being holier than the sacrifice would mean the sacrifice did not truly represent them.

However, if the collective decided to sacrifice someone holier than itself, it would need to find someone better than itself. This would have the opposite effect of causing a sense of humility. Yet, sacrificing someone better than themselves, again, would be sacrificing someone which did not truly represent them. In other words, how could I truly say this person were better than me if I did not think I, myself, were any worse?

Judging oneself worse would not produce a vicarious sacrifice and neither would judging oneself any better. The members of the collective would have to see themselves as being equivalent to the innocent victim.

However, this raises another dilemma. If the members of the collective were equivalent to the innocent victim, then, this would imply they saw themselves as being innocent; and, being innocent, the sacrifice was a mockery. For how could one apologize, honestly, if the individual did not believe he, or she, were guilty?

Many people, in ancient societies, not unlike many of us, today, saw themselves as victims of circumstances. They felt as though they were at the mercy of angry gods. They felt very small in a very large world ruled by chance and the capricious will of God. Many times, they were not even aware which of their actions corresponded to the whims of Mother Nature. Any idea of causation was mere intuition. However, the sins they believed were in direct relationship to the catastrophe which occurred were often seen as petty in comparison. This is the reason ancient societies dealt so harshly with people who disobeyed their laws. To allow someone to go unpunished was to insure an even worse fate for society. However, being extremely particular about their laws and executing swift judgment on the wrongdoer did not guarantee the abatement of God's wrath. To do so would be to sacrifice their best, someone who represented their high ideals, someone who represented their beliefs about who they were as a society. They believed their culture was superb; they believed there was none parallel to them; they believed they were innocent victims... a lot like us.

The problem stems from the fact that the enemy who started it all, Satan, has done all he can to stop humans taking advantage of that scapegoat and eventually be brought back on plan.

To do that he created false religions, and then false Christianities. After his being kicked out of heaven and realising there was now no way he could win, he accelerated the confusion by creating many thousand false Christianities to hide the real one as well as he could.

Don't let him win in your case, Find the real one and follow it. The Bible is the roadmap, despite the fact that Satan has corrupted that as much as he was allowed to also. Jehovah wants us to win and will help us if we only ask him to.

You must love Bullproof a lot if you want to be him, poof. : :

You don't have any idea how much I love my people.

You silly imposter, poof.