The Best Guide

[nPeace]

@icehorse
I did not forget you. Thanks for being patient.

A little background on the true God - Jehovah:
Jehovah God loves righteousness and justice. Psalms 33:5
“I am Jehovah, the One exercising loving-kindness, justice and righteousness in the earth; for in these things I do take delight.” Jeremiah 9:24
The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he. Deuteronomy 32:4

Jehovah God is love. 1 John 4:8
God's abundant love is perfectly balanced with true justice.
Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation. Exodus 34:6-7
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. John 3:16

God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son
How does that work? Was God's only begotten son a scapegoat -
a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of convenience, despite possibly being improper or immoral?

Was the only begotten son blamed for Adam's wrongdoing?

Spoiler: Scriptural Answer

That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned Romans 5:12

While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. Listen to him.” Matthew 17:5

For such a high priest as this was suitable for us, loyal, guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and become higher than the heavens. Hebrews 7:26

Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many! Also, it is not the same with the free gift as with the way things worked through the one man who sinned. For the judgment after one trespass was condemnation, but the gift after many trespasses was a declaration of righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings+ in life through the one person, Jesus Christ!
So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous. Romans 5:14-19

Clearly. The answer is no. It ought to be a resounding no.

Was the sacrifice of God's son improper - immoral?

Spoiler: Scriptural Answer

But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9

For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. 1 Peter 3:18

By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice* for our sins. 1 John 4:9-10

For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time. For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, since we have now been declared righteous by his blood, will we be saved through him from wrath. For if when we were enemies we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more we will be saved by his life, now that we have become reconciled. Not only that, but we are also rejoicing in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Romans 5:6-11

The scriptures show, it was an act of love, on the part of Jehovah God, and his beloved son, on behalf of mankind. A necessary act, if man were to live the life that God wanted for them - the real life - everlasting life.

Was it really necessary? How was it a just and righteous act, and not improper?
Let's analyze Romans 5:14-19 carefully, along with 1 Timothy 2:6, Mark 10:45, Colossians 1:13, and 1 Peter 1:18-19.

In man's sinful state

• they could not have a relationship with Jehovah God.
• they would all face death, without any hope of life.
• they could not provide any ransom, which was needed to redeem them from sin and death(2), and reconcile them to God(1).

Christ sacrifice

• is an undeserved gift of God... not to God, but from God.
• is a corresponding ransom, that covers the sins of all mankind.
• is an exchange for the lives of many - one life in exchange for millions.
  
• allows mankind to have a righteous standing with God - a reconciliation that leads to eternal life... not death.
• allows mankind to be freed of sin, and its wages - death.
• was a high price - that of precious blood.

Jehovah's standards of righteousness and justice, required a life for life - that is compensation for life that is lost.Exodus 21:23
Since Adam plunged the entire human race into death, a life was required to cover the blood - the life of all those 'dead ones'.
Could rams be the perfect compensation? No. Why not?
Justice requires perfect balance. For example, you would not accept an apple to compensate for me breaking the headlight of your vehicle.

Adam was a perfect man, whose offspring would be perfect had he not sinned.
In order for Adam's offspring to be perfect, their father needed to be perfect.
Jesus filled the position of the father - a perfect one. Isaiah 9:6 He will make perfect life possible for them.

Jesus' perfect sacrifice could thus buy back what was lost.
His blood - not blemished lambs - could cover the sins of mankind (which they could not pay for - Psalms 49:7-8), paying off that debt, and allowing them to be forgiven.

So Adam's offspring could 1) be forgiven of sin, 2) have perfect life, 3) be freed from sin, and death.
Thus God's righteousness was demonstrated.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. God presented him as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, because God in his forbearance was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness in this present season, so that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:23-26

So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. Romans 5:18
God also demonstrated his justice, and love.

I tried to cover everything, but if I missed anything, I'm sure you will inform me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@icehorse
I did not forget you. Thanks for being patient.

A little background on the true God - Jehovah:
Jehovah God loves righteousness and justice. Psalms 33:5
“I am Jehovah, the One exercising loving-kindness, justice and righteousness in the earth; for in these things I do take delight.” Jeremiah 9:24
The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he. Deuteronomy 32:4

Jehovah God is love. 1 John 4:8
God's abundant love is perfectly balanced with true justice.
Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation. Exodus 34:6-7
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. John 3:16

God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son
How does that work? Was God's only begotten son a scapegoat -
a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of convenience, despite possibly being improper or immoral?

Was the only begotten son blamed for Adam's wrongdoing?

Spoiler: Scriptural Answer

That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned Romans 5:12

While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. Listen to him.” Matthew 17:5

For such a high priest as this was suitable for us, loyal, guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and become higher than the heavens. Hebrews 7:26

Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many! Also, it is not the same with the free gift as with the way things worked through the one man who sinned. For the judgment after one trespass was condemnation, but the gift after many trespasses was a declaration of righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings+ in life through the one person, Jesus Christ!
So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous. Romans 5:14-19

Clearly. The answer is no. It ought to be a resounding no.

Was the sacrifice of God's son improper - immoral?

Spoiler: Scriptural Answer

But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9

For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. 1 Peter 3:18

By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice* for our sins. 1 John 4:9-10

For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time. For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, since we have now been declared righteous by his blood, will we be saved through him from wrath. For if when we were enemies we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more we will be saved by his life, now that we have become reconciled. Not only that, but we are also rejoicing in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Romans 5:6-11

The scriptures show, it was an act of love, on the part of Jehovah God, and his beloved son, on behalf of mankind. A necessary act, if man were to live the life that God wanted for them - the real life - everlasting life.

Was it really necessary? How was it a just and righteous act, and not improper?
Let's analyze Romans 5:14-19 carefully, along with 1 Timothy 2:6, Mark 10:45, Colossians 1:13, and 1 Peter 1:18-19.

In man's sinful state

• they could not have a relationship with Jehovah God.
• they would all face death, without any hope of life.
• they could not provide any ransom, which was needed to redeem them from sin and death(2), and reconcile them to God(1).

Christ sacrifice

• is an undeserved gift of God... not to God, but from God.
• is a corresponding ransom, that covers the sins of all mankind.
• is an exchange for the lives of many - one life in exchange for millions.
  
• allows mankind to have a righteous standing with God - a reconciliation that leads to eternal life... not death.
• allows mankind to be freed of sin, and its wages - death.
• was a high price - that of precious blood.

Jehovah's standards of righteousness and justice, required a life for life - that is compensation for life that is lost.Exodus 21:23
Since Adam plunged the entire human race into death, a life was required to cover the blood - the life of all those 'dead ones'.
Could rams be the perfect compensation? No. Why not?
Justice requires perfect balance. For example, you would not accept an apple to compensate for me breaking the headlight of your vehicle.

Adam was a perfect man, whose offspring would be perfect had he not sinned.
In order for Adam's offspring to be perfect, their father needed to be perfect.
Jesus filled the position of the father - a perfect one. Isaiah 9:6 He will make perfect life possible for them.

Jesus' perfect sacrifice could thus buy back what was lost.
His blood - not blemished lambs - could cover the sins of mankind (which they could not pay for - Psalms 49:7-8), paying off that debt, and allowing them to be forgiven.

So Adam's offspring could 1) be forgiven of sin, 2) have perfect life, 3) be freed from sin, and death.
Thus God's righteousness was demonstrated.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. God presented him as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, because God in his forbearance was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness in this present season, so that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:23-26

So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. Romans 5:18
God also demonstrated his justice, and love.

I tried to cover everything, but if I missed anything, I'm sure you will inform me.

This is just preaching.

 

[icehorse]

I tried to cover everything, but if I missed anything, I'm sure you will inform me.

No worries about response time

Based on our conversation so far, you can probably predict my response:

I'm not at all an expert of Christian theology. For the sake of this discussion, I'm happy to grant you everything you said in your response. That means that from a theological perspective, I'm happy to say you're 100% correct.

BUT, all theology is done with our conscious minds!

Theological discourses have little or no impact on our subconscious brains. And as you know, our subconscious brains do 95% of our thinking for us. As you know, our egos - which are housed in our conscious minds - like to think they're in charge of our lives. But as you know, that's simply not true. Most everything we think and do is ultimately directed by our unconscious brains.

What this means is that theological claims might make our egos feel good, but our BRAINS are not impressed. As you know, our brains tend to make parsimonious conclusions when they're exposed to ideas. And if you step back, try to quiet your theological proclivities, and read the scripture parsimoniously, with no preconceived notions, you'll find that most scripture (not just Christian scripture), is riddled with barbaric morals and ethics, like scapegoating.

 

[nPeace]

No worries about response time

Based on our conversation so far, you can probably predict my response:

I'm not at all an expert of Christian theology. For the sake of this discussion, I'm happy to grant you everything you said in your response. That means that from a theological perspective, I'm happy to say you're 100% correct.

BUT, all theology is done with our conscious minds!

Theological discourses have little or no impact on our subconscious brains. And as you know, our subconscious brains do 95% of our thinking for us. As you know, our egos - which are housed in our conscious minds - like to think they're in charge of our lives. But as you know, that's simply not true. Most everything we think and do is ultimately directed by our unconscious brains.

I guess you applied that to all claims, philosophical, and otherwise.
Otherwise, that would be a clear indication of bias.

What this means is that theological claims might make our egos feel good, but our BRAINS are not impressed.

Happens in all areas of life.

As you know, our brains tend to make parsimonious conclusions when they're exposed to ideas. And if you step back, try to quiet your theological proclivities, and read the scripture parsimoniously, with no preconceived notions, you'll find that most scripture (not just Christian scripture), is riddled with barbaric morals and ethics, like scapegoating.

That's interesting, since you highlight what you claimed was not the case.
So my repeating it was merited, wasn't it.
Why were you denying it?

So which did I follow, the conscious, or the subconscious, when I wasted my time, although knowing I would be doing so?

 

[icehorse]

I guess you applied that to all claims, philosophical, and otherwise.
Otherwise, that would be a clear indication of bias.

Absolutely, the BRAIN doesn't really distinguish. But as you know, two of the most powerful ways to get the BRAIN to pay attention to ANY idea are:

1 - Repetition (scripture tends to be REALLY good at repetition, and holy men are the same).
2 - Causing an emotional response. Scripture tends to be really good at evoking fear responses, which the BRAIN finds quite memorable

Happens in all areas of life.

Yup, see above. Advertisers and marketeers understand these things and use them all the time.

That's interesting, since you highlight what you claimed was not the case.
So my repeating it was merited, wasn't it.
Why were you denying it?

Sorry, I'm not following you here, can you rephrase this? thanks.

So which did I follow, the conscious, or the subconscious, when I wasted my time, although knowing I would be doing so?

I'm not inside your mind/brain, but I'd hazard a guess that in this case your brain and mind agree (you are invested in these ideas).

As for wasting your time, hmmm. It seems to me there are a few possibilities:

1 - Despite your vague claims of expertise, you did NOT actually know some of the cog. science I've been using. In this case, I'd hope that learning a little cog. sci. isn't a waste of time
2 - You did previously know the cog. sci., but have convinced yourself it doesn't apply to scripture. In this case I'd paraphrase Daniel Kahneman who said: "I can make a good argument for being the world's leading authority on bias, and I can tell you, I'm still subject to it."

 

[nPeace]

Absolutely, the BRAIN doesn't really distinguish. But as you know, two of the most powerful ways to get the BRAIN to pay attention to ANY idea are:

1 - Repetition (scripture tends to be REALLY good at repetition, and holy men are the same).
2 - Causing an emotional response. Scripture tends to be really good at evoking fear responses, which the BRAIN finds quite memorable



Yup, see above. Advertisers and marketeers understand these things and use them all the time.



Sorry, I'm not following you here, can you rephrase this? thanks.



I'm not inside your mind/brain, but I'd hazard a guess that in this case your brain and mind agree (you are invested in these ideas).

As for wasting your time, hmmm. It seems to me there are a few possibilities:

1 - Despite your vague claims of expertise, you did NOT actually know some of the cog. science I've been using. In this case, I'd hope that learning a little cog. sci. isn't a waste of time
2 - You did previously know the cog. sci., but have convinced yourself it doesn't apply to scripture. In this case I'd paraphrase Daniel Kahneman who said: "I can make a good argument for being the world's leading authority on bias, and I can tell you, I'm still subject to it."

...but if your subconscious mind has completely taken over your conscious mind, to the point where there is about 1% conscious thought, how will you understand what I said, even if I repeated it the 7th time, in a different way?

 

[icehorse]

...but if your subconscious mind has completely taken over your conscious mind, to the point where there is about 1% conscious thought, how will you understand what I said, even if I repeated it the 7th time, in a different way?

Not what I said

Wanna take another stab, this time without putting words in my mouth?

== edit

Okay, that was a bit snarky.

I'm sure you've experienced internal battles with yourself. E.g., you really want that snack that's bad for you. The BRAIN wants the snack, the mind knows it's too sugar-y. So you go back and forth. There are many such examples of these inner struggles every day. The general idea, as you know, is that the intuition (the Brain), tends to lead, and then the conscious mind disagrees, or tries to rationalize, or whatever.

But you know all of this..

 

[nPeace]

Not what I said

Wanna take another stab, this time without putting words in my mouth?

Huh? You can't see it, can you.
Did I say you said something?
...but if your subconscious mind has completely taken over your conscious mind, to the point where there is about 1% conscious thought, how will you understand what I said, even if I repeated it the 7th time, in a different way?
No.

== edit

Ha Ha. So a tug of war seems to be going on in the brain. Conscious vs subconscious.
Which would you want to win?

Okay, that was a bit snarky.

See, it's more serious than I thought.
Seriously? How is my statement indirect and sarcastic?
See what I mean by the subconscious mind completely taking over the conscious mind. I take back the 1%. Now it looks more like 0.5% conscious thought.

If you use your conscious mind to consider what I said, you would see no indirectness, or sarcasm, you would see this... if your subconscious mind has completely taken over your conscious mind, to the point where there is about 1% ... 0.5% now... conscious thought, how will you understand what I said....
...and perhaps you would give a response, rather than failing to see that it's something you should consider,
So clearly, your subconscious don't want you to consciously do that.
Got it? I'm trying.

So grant me this, and do this for yourself B... Listen to yourself for a minute.
Are you listening? Here goes...

I'm bringing a new perspective to how scripture impacts human beings. I'm drawing an important distinction between a human's conscious mind, and their unconscious brain.

All of the apologist arguments I've ever heard, implicitly restrict themselves to the domain of the conscious mind, and they ignore the unconscious brain.

If the context is a theological one, then I agree with you that theologians have explained all of the inconsistencies. But those explanations are ALSO implicitly ONLY in the context of the conscious mind, and they do not consider how their scripture impacts the subconscious brain.

...to this day, I have never heard a religious apologist admit that their scripture is propaganda.

I'm more than happy to admit that I'm using propagandistic techniques in my criticisms of scripture. That does not make my claims wrong!!

So my main claim in this thread is this: Abrahamic scripture is riddled with damaging, divisive messages. For centuries, holy men and theologians and parents and elders have developed all manner of approaches to try to hide this fact. But the scripture damns itself. And neuroscience tells us that no matter how apologists attempt to spin the scripture, when we expose ourselves to it, our subconscious brains will absorb it's damaging, divisive messages.

I've already agreed that I'M employing propaganda. That has NOTHING to do with the propagandistic nature of scripture.

In other words, if I never started this conversation with you, the nature of the scripture would still be propagandistic. You continue to try to personalize this and it's not personal. The scripture is how it is, regardless of how we talk about it.

You keep trying to make this personal. The nature of the scripture remains the same, regardless of who is reading it. Sure, the skeptic's conscious mind will come to different conclusions than the apologist's conscious mind.

Did you listen attentively?
So tell me what I got wrong.
propaganda -
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The scriptures is propaganda, and the "apologist" ignores the subconscious mind, to consciously accept the propaganda... even though subconsciously being aware that it is wrong.
You use propaganda, but you are both subconsciously and consciously aware of that, but there is nothing wrong with that, because you are right.
Therefore, you do not need to change your view, because regardless of the fact that you use propaganda, it is right.
The apologist on the other hand, should admit that his propaganda is wrong... but consciously, he does not want to.

Did I get anything wrong there?
Now listen carefully to what I am saying to you. It's a repeat of what I have been saying over and over in numerous ways.
Our internal desires... our heart... which the Bible describes as treacherous, can cause us to be subconsciously driven in a direction that is in opposition to the conscious mind.
So, we may be consciously aware of something... we have the ability to use reason, logic, along with knowledge, and understanding, but because our heart - our below the surface inclinations - our subconscious - drives us in a direction it is inclined to go, all sense of reason is overridden, and we blindly... yes, blindly, without conscious thought, follow our subconscious... our treacherous heart. How treacherous?
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?
The King James Version renders it this way... The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Did you get the point?
I'm highlighting the reverse of what you are "drawing to my attention".
Maybe that's another reason you can't see it. Your focus is one direction. Why? Could it be the subconscious is the driver, and it's one direction... against all conscious reason?

I'm sure you've experienced internal battles with yourself. E.g., you really want that snack that's bad for you. The BRAIN wants the snack, the mind knows it's too sugar-y. So you go back and forth. There are many such examples of these inner struggles every day. The general idea, as you know, is that the intuition (the Brain), tends to lead, and then the conscious mind disagrees, or tries to rationalize, or whatever.

But you know all of this..

Ah! There you go!
So that's a good illustration.

Now consider which is the wicked part... the conscious - the one that knows through knowledge, and understanding, that too much sugar is not healthy for you. Or the subconscious - the one that craves what is bad for you?

So why not answer that question with the same application here.
Who's in more trouble, the "apologist", or you?

You see, the apologist knows -is consciously aware of the "bad"... let me be direct, lest you misunderstand... The so-called bad, in the Bible, so he is not ignoring the subconscious knowledge of that.
What the apologist does, is he uses the conscious as the driver, to override the treacherous, desperately wicked prodding to ignore all the other knowledge that leads to the understanding that "Hey. You are not as wise as you think. So be a child, and learn from one that has repeatedly proven to be right."
Yes, he looks at all the evidence. He does not discard all the evidence that shows he needs to understand all the facts, in order to make an objective judgement.

Yes, we have seen repeated proof of this...
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9

...and so, we take to heart the words of the prophet Ezekiel... ‘And YOU people will certainly say: “The way of Jehovah* is not adjusted right.” Hear, please, O house of Israel. Is not my own way adjusted right? Are not the ways of YOU people not adjusted right? Ezekiel 18:25

...and we listen to the mind - conscious ... not the heart - subconscious. Thus, we benefit... always
Based on your illustration, we aren't wrong.

 

[icehorse]

The scriptures is propaganda, and the "apologist" ignores the subconscious mind, to consciously accept the propaganda... even though subconsciously being aware that it is wrong.
You use propaganda, but you are both subconsciously and consciously aware of that, but there is nothing wrong with that, because you are right.
Therefore, you do not need to change your view, because regardless of the fact that you use propaganda, it is right.
The apologist on the other hand, should admit that his propaganda is wrong... but consciously, he does not want to.

I'm going to generalize a bit here:

When a person consumes propaganda, they TEND NOT to be consciously aware that that's what's happening. The average church-goer TENDS NOT to say to themselves, "okay, let's go listen to some propaganda at church today".

The subconscious doesn't really use concepts like "moral" or "immoral" to direct our behaviors. The subconscious learns through experience, emotions, and repetition. Let's use motor skills as an example. We don't explain to toddlers how to walk. They observe others - a lot - and they experiment - a lot. And NO ONE, not even robotics scientists, can really explain how it is we walk. If you think you can accurately explain how to walk, book yourself a ticket to SF and talk to the folks at Google, they'll give you millions of dollars for your walking formula.

So the subconscious is not making the sorts of logical evaluations you're imagining.

A person goes thru the year and every day they hear "drink Pepsi", and every week they go to church and written on a wall it says "Jesus died for your sins". So over the year - among many other messages - the subconscious is exposed to "drink pepsi", "Jesus died for your sins", "Jesus died for your sins", "drink pepsi", "drink pepsi", "jesus died for your sins", over, and over and over again.

Now one week the pastor gives a sermon and uses all the scripture you've used in this thread to explain why Jesus wasn't really a scapegoat. Okay, so your conscious MIND agrees with that message. But your subconscious BRAIN has learned - amongst other things - "drink pepsi" and "jesus died for your sins".

The only way we can really control what our subconscious comes to believe is by controlling what it's exposed to. If you watch a lot of TV, your subconscious WILL come to believe that Big Macs and Pepsi are desirable, no matter what your conscious mind believes.

You see, the apologist knows -is consciously aware of the "bad"... let me be direct, lest you misunderstand... The so-called bad, in the Bible, so he is not ignoring the subconscious knowledge of that.
What the apologist does, is he uses the conscious as the driver, to override the treacherous, desperately wicked prodding to ignore all the other knowledge that leads to the understanding that "Hey. You are not as wise as you think. So be a child, and learn from one that has repeatedly proven to be right."
Yes, he looks at all the evidence. He does not discard all the evidence that shows he needs to understand all the facts, in order to make an objective judgement.

For most people, it's very hard to accept how little control the MIND has over the BRAIN. Our minds would like to think that we can "ignore" stuff. We cannot. Our minds would like to think that we can override the messages we're exposed to over and over again. We cannot.

 

[nPeace]

I'm going to generalize a bit here:

When a person consumes propaganda, they TEND NOT to be consciously aware that that's what's happening. The average church-goer TENDS NOT to say to themselves, "okay, let's go listen to some propaganda at church today".

The subconscious doesn't really use concepts like "moral" or "immoral" to direct our behaviors. The subconscious learns through experience, emotions, and repetition. Let's use motor skills as an example. We don't explain to toddlers how to walk. They observe others - a lot - and they experiment - a lot. And NO ONE, not even robotics scientists, can really explain how it is we walk. If you think you can accurately explain how to walk, book yourself a ticket to SF and talk to the folks at Google, they'll give you millions of dollars for your walking formula.

So the subconscious is not making the sorts of logical evaluations you're imagining.

A person goes thru the year and every day they hear "drink Pepsi", and every week they go to church and written on a wall it says "Jesus died for your sins". So over the year - among many other messages - the subconscious is exposed to "drink pepsi", "Jesus died for your sins", "Jesus died for your sins", "drink pepsi", "drink pepsi", "jesus died for your sins", over, and over and over again.

Now one week the pastor gives a sermon and uses all the scripture you've used in this thread to explain why Jesus wasn't really a scapegoat. Okay, so your conscious MIND agrees with that message. But your subconscious BRAIN has learned - amongst other things - "drink pepsi" and "jesus died for your sins".

The only way we can really control what our subconscious comes to believe is by controlling what it's exposed to. If you watch a lot of TV, your subconscious WILL come to believe that Big Macs and Pepsi are desirable, no matter what your conscious mind believes.



For most people, it's very hard to accept how little control the MIND has over the BRAIN. Our minds would like to think that we can "ignore" stuff. We cannot. Our minds would like to think that we can override the messages we're exposed to over and over again. We cannot.

I'll just take one little point from here to end this discussion, because it seems to me, it is supposed to end only one way.

The subconscious learns through experience, emotions, and repetition
Yes. Exactly. That's why you will only see what it - your subconscious - has learned from you over the long years of your holding your views.

That's my conclusion. Take care.

 

[icehorse]

I'll just take one little point from here to end this discussion, because it seems to me, it is supposed to end only one way.

The subconscious learns through experience, emotions, and repetition
Yes. Exactly. That's why you will only see what it - your subconscious - has learned from you over the long years of your holding your views.

That's my conclusion. Take care.

Let's not pretend that what I'm saying is just my opinion. This is how brains and minds work, whether it fits your agenda or not