Is the Christian cross a symbol representing Scapegoating?

[Augustus]

The idea of a scapegoat is that one person's punishment can be handed off to another being.

Ritualistically, it is placing a cost on your request for atonement. Similar concept to sacrifice, a public display of commitment to the community by giving up something of value.

 

[DennisTate]

I didn't cite any text, my claim is that many Christians say "Jesus died for our sins". That idea seems like scapegoating, or a minor variation on scapegoating.

On the other hand.......
The Ancient of Days the FAther.....
and the Ancient of Days the Mother, (probably the Ruach ha Kodesh The Holy Spirit).... are pretty intelligent and having invented the human mind and consciousness.......
know that some variation of scapegoating may be all that a significant segment of the population can comprehend at first........
while their own level of guilt is pretty high.

So perhaps..... the possibility of humans being guilty of "scapegoating" was factored into the formula from the beginning...... because in many cases........ it does have psychological, spiritual and emotional benefits..... for some people.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Torture, everything that comes before death.
Humiliation, ridicule. Death here, the spear in the side, was more or less a kindness.

But he gets to come back with only a couple of wounds left (the others healed in just three days?) and lives for eternity and only has to go back to work for a mere thousand years at some vague point in earth's very long history.

As for being "anti-Christ", are you saying that if one doesn't agree with Christ 100% of the time, then one is "anti-Christ"? So if I agree with Jesus's teaching only 99% of the time I'm "anti-Christ"?

For some, "worship" is equal to "butt-kissing". God can make butt-kissers out of rocks. A healthy relationship means being able to say "no".

A son gets into payment that he couldn't afford and he is about to be sued for failure of payment... the dad steps in and pays the fine, the interest and the complete debt.

And the son learns that he can rely on daddy to take care of things, like children whose parents throw fits in front of the teacher because the child is failing.

This is just bad human psychology, but then again, God made creatures and didn't know how they worked as He was shocked humans did what humans do when you tell them no.

Because God is eternal, pure, and holy His justice demands an eternal penalty for anything which falls short and violates His perfect standards.

So, when God admits He is smiting Job for no good reason, why doesn't He cast Himself out of Heaven?

I mean, in karmic religions, gods can be "demoted" when they screw up.

 

[Fool]

I think you're conflating two ideas here. If a hero on a battlefield sacrifices his life for his fellows, that is indeed an amazing act of love.

But for a modern Christian to accept the idea that he's born broken and that 2000 years ago Jesus sacrificed himself - in advance - seems to me to be a minor variation on scapegoating. Please tell me how you connect the dots differently?

jesus didn't advocate sacrificing anything other than unnecessary wants vs needs. in matthew 9:14 and 12:13 he quotes hosea 6:6.


laying down your life doesn't translate to assisted suicide, or sacrificing a human. it would also break the law as mentioned in matthew 22:36-40.


the cross is an old symbol. jesus would have been fully aware of its esoteric meaning given his asociation to spiritual circles.

i agree with your idea that morally bankrupt people like caiaphas would come up with a negative idea and place it upon the head and shoulders of innocent person.

 

[InChrist]

So, when God admits He is smiting Job for no good reason, why doesn't He cast Himself out of Heaven?

I mean, in karmic religions, gods can be "demoted" when they screw up.

You may want to re-read the book of Job. God does not admit, nor do anything for "no good reason".

 

[metis]

the book of Job.

BTW, are you aware of the fact that historians believe that the Book of Job appears to be the oldest book in the Bible in terms of its writing?

Therefore, if you ever go on Jeopardy and win on that question, you'll owe me big time! I'll take half, OK?

 

[blü 2]

Your inaccurate view may be appalling, but the reality of God's eternal love is certainly not.

'Eternal love' is the direct contradiction of your expression 'eternal penalty'. Choose one. You can't have both.

I would not throw my dog into fire as in you weird, skewed analogy.

So when Matthew's Jesus speaks of the 'eternal fire' and Revelation of 'the lake that burns with fire and sulphur', you think they were only kidding, right?

God is in the process of perfecting, purifying, and refining any willing human beings to live eternally in His love, joy, and beauty.

But in his great eternal love he burns the others forever in tormenting fires.

And since with one snap of those omnipotent fingers he could have the universe in any shape that pleased him, eternally tormenting people who don't agree with him is self-evidently what pleases him.

 

[InChrist]

BTW, are you aware of the fact that historians believe that the Book of Job appears to be the oldest book in the Bible in terms of its writing?

Therefore, if you ever go on Jeopardy and win on that question, you'll owe me big time! I'll take half, OK?

I was aware that Job is considered the oldest book in the Bible...but I don't mind being reminded. I often forget details. Doubt I'll ever be on Jeopardy, but if I won on that question, might just give you the entire prize!

 

[InChrist]

'Eternal love' is the direct contradiction of your expression 'eternal penalty'. Choose one. You can't have both.
So when Matthew's Jesus speaks of the 'eternal fire' and Revelation of 'the lake that burns with fire and sulphur', you think they were only kidding, right?

But in his great eternal love he burns the others forever in tormenting fires.

And since with one snap of those omnipotent fingers he could have the universe in any shape that pleased him, eternally tormenting people who don't agree with him is self-evidently what pleases him.

No, God cannot just snap His fingers ... because He thought it incredibly important to instill freewill into beings made in His image and desires relationship with individuals who choose to respond to freely to Him and others with love. God is in the process of creating a universe where people choose to give up their sin which harms self and others. God's way of dealing with sin is eternal death and separation. The suffering, other darkness, or burning which you are focusing will occur simply because humans who refuse eternity with God will be apart from the only Source of all goodness and this will be an awful state to exist in.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, scapegoat comes from a Jewish act that they did once a year.

I would look at it this way: in comparison to sinlessness it is man that is morally bankrupt, Thus the "scapegoat" is a good message because we find forgiveness, righteousness and wholeness in it.

As far as the symbol... it isn't a necessary symbol... I think before the cross symbol, a fish symbol was used--but again... not a necessary symbol.

Couldnt the same message of sacrifice and forgiveness be complete
through self-renounciation by living from an example of a person's life rather than one's death?

Do you need someone to actually die for you to live?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It strikes me that the idea that "Jesus died for our sins" is morally bankrupt. It seems to be a pretty clear example of scapegoating, which in other cultures is viewed in a very negative light.

Why do Christians think that making Jesus a scapegoat is a good message? And given that, why would the cross be seen as a good symbol of the faith?

By defintion, it is scapegoating. The idea as one friend said when she converted from Muslim.

"I cant do it in my own!"

Its a indirect form of jewish sacrifice where in the OT they used real animals but since protestants dont like the Idea of doing the same with a human, they reflect their expeciences on the written life of jesus in order to bring out his physical life and passion.

As for the cross one person's pagan symbol is anotber person's reminder of his salvation as wedding rings to vows

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think you understand what scapegoating is.

Here, Scapegoating - Wikipedia

Christians don't blame Jesus for their sin.

It boggles my mind how some of the non-christians here come up with such whacky ideas.

LoLz

Christians "use" jesus by putting the blame from themselves when they sin (leading to guilt) onto jesus' flesh that became sin, took the blame, and made it innocent with his blood.

Its saying, "jesus, you punished me for sinning. Take my blame and anger on you, transform if with your love so it may die in your death, im forgiven, and live forever."

My friend cried because she felt guilty blaming christ for her sin. The idea is we killed jesus. Why blame him. Blame ourselves. Hard to do hence why jesus became sin.

Its scapegoating. Blame washed clean by the innocence of the victim. Some blame and turn from god. Others justify their blame by christ forgiveness

I dont think its wacky just an unethical way to live a spiritually healthy life by someone else's death.

 

[blü 2]

No, God cannot just snap His fingers ... because He thought it incredibly important to instill freewill into beings made in His image and desires relationship with individuals who choose to respond to freely to Him and others with love.

Gee, he sounds as desperate for love as Donald Trump. And what's this about freewill? He's omniscient, so he knew in perfect detail, back before he made the universe,
what everyone was going to think, say and do, and what if any religious beliefs they'd have. And since his knowledge is perfect, no one can never deviate from that even by a Planck length, by a picosecond. Omniscience means never ever being taken by surprise.

The suffering, other darkness, or burning which you are focusing will occur simply because humans who refuse eternity with God will be apart from the only Source of all goodness and this will be an awful state to exist in.

Eternal punishment for disagreeing? That's grotesquely unjust.

If as you say God's gone to such pains to give humans freewill, why doesn't he respect their decisions? Why the obsessive standover tactics, the protection racket, the blackmail, the stalking, to impose his own will on someone to whom he gave free will?

And how on earth is love compatible with implacable compulsion?

 

[InChrist]

If as you say God's gone to such pains to give humans freewill, why doesn't he respect their decisions?

He does. Anyone is free to decide to live with God or apart from God. What you don't seem to grasp is that living apart from the only source of light and life will be extremely painful and lonely since we were created to live with God and are dependent on God to exist.

 

[blü 2]

He does. Anyone is free to decide to live with God or apart from God. What you don't seem to grasp is that living apart from the only source of light and life will be extremely painful and lonely since we were created to live with God and are dependent on God to exist.

No, very plainly he does NOT respect their decisions. He punishes them for all eternity if they don't toe his line. You say so yourself. And that can't be justice, is not fair or appropriate.

He's not a perfect god. He's constantly guilty of the grave sin of religious intolerance.

 

[InChrist]

No, very plainly he does NOT respect their decisions. He punishes them for all eternity if they don't toe his line. You say so yourself. And that can't be justice, is not fair or appropriate.

He's not a perfect god. He's constantly guilty of the grave sin of religious intolerance.

Actually, He does not punish them forever. People suffer forever being apart from God because He respects their decision to be separated from Him. It is just a very painful and eternal place to be.

It is fair and just because God will completely eliminate sin and the damaging havoc it causes. It would be unjust for Him to allow it to go on for eternity.

 

[Thief]

@Thief I think you're nitpicking here. I'm happy to acknowledge minor differences between the OT practices and "Jesus died for our sins". But I'd say that there are only minor differences. In both cases, the bottom line seems to be: someone else can take your punishment in your place - what a horrible, horrible idea.

I see a distinct difference

in the days of Moses (the many years that followed)
people really did believe they could lay their state of sin unto another creature
kill it
and the sin dies with that death

as if sin can only be relieved by death

and the Christian faith is rooted on the notion that one Man dies for the sins of the world

I don't call myself Christian..because of that one fundamental notion

we all die
we all stand before heaven in the state of mind and heart that we are

 

[blü 2]

It is fair and just because God will completely eliminate sin and the damaging havoc it causes. It would be unjust for Him to allow it to go on for eternity.

The bible disagrees with you. It says the fire is everlasting.

But since we have no point of agreement, let's leave it at that.

 

[Thief]

Torture, everything that comes before death.
Humiliation, ridicule. Death here, the spear in the side, was more or less a kindness.

Jesus claimed to be the son of God, big crime worthy of all the pain and suffering he went through prior to death.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

I see misconceptions.....

the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead ....He did not fit the description of Messiah
as the Pharisees thought a Messiah should be
that people were hinting to the title .....Son of God....
was very offensive to the Pharisees

but the Romans cared not

Pilate sought to end the public debate by flogging
39 lashes of the whip is not a death sentence
40 was considered a sure kill
(hence the catch phrase.....'a stroke short of your life')

but the Carpenter did not die at the whipping post

so the debate continued

the Pharisees sought judgment and penalty for the claim......Son of God
but Judea had no capital punishment for cause of Roman occupation

but Rome had no interest that any Man would call himself ...Son of God

the conviction came under insurrection.....the claim....
King of the Jews
under Roman law there is no king but Ceasar

the Pharisees objected

if Rome executes any would be king of the Jews
then the prophecy of the Messiah would never be fulfilled

Pilate retorted....I have wrote what I have written
Jesus.....King of the Jews

He died for insurrection

the spear to His side was only to be sure the Man was dead
the soldier in charge of the execution would not apply the test until sure
and then only to be sure

death by cross is the order given
the soldier would wait until death by crucifixion was sure
then the point of the spear

and then.......only to be sure

 

[Kenny]

I guess it depends on your definition of "broken". Of course, as a card carrying human being I have made mistakes. So if making mistakes (e.g. lying) means I'm broken ny your definition, then of course I'm broken.

Yes... we can have a different definition of broken... so, yes, that was mine.

But the best I can do is acknowledge my mistakes, make amends if possible, and strive to do better in the future. What makes no sense to me is to believe that unless I ask god for redemption, I'm doomed to hellfire. Again, that seems a cruel bargain, hardly enlightened.

Great thing to do and I tip my hat off to you for having a good sense of propriety.

But I'm not sure about the rest. It almost sounds like you are saying... "If I do wrong, the judge should judge to my standards. After all... I tried to make amends and I will strie to do better". Should a judge always follow that line of thinking?

Ok, please connect the dots from OT origins to believing that scapegoating is a good idea as we approach 2018.

I wake up every morning thinking how grand it is to have new mercies every morning... a great way to approach 2018.

Well here we have a major difference in definitions. Making mistakes is inevitable, it's what you do about them that makes the difference.

I'm not sure a policeman or judge will follow that line of thinking... "Judge, I know I was speeding while I was drag racing... but... Making mistakes in inevitable and it is what I am going to about it that will make a difference"...

Hmmmm.... no, I don't think the policeman or judge will follow that line of thinking.

This is just a different example of the conflation I brought up earlier. But let's dig into your debt scenario a little deeper. I would say that if the debt paying father lets his son off with no repercussions, that father is behaving badly. The son should suffer some punishment for his mistake. In your example we might conclude that the legal repercussions are more severe than the mistake, but that doesn't mean the son should get off scot free.

OK... let's follow that line of thinking... have you lied all of your life? Did you cheat on your taxes? Did you take a longer break than what you were suppose to? Did you play on the computer instead of working? Did you dishonor your parents? Did you go faster than the speed limit? How often? How many more things can I add?

Did you pay for all of your errors? Should you get off scott free on all of those things?

No... for me I am thankful that all my sins are washed away and it is His mercy that drives me to be better... not the reprecussions thereof.