Sorry for the punctuation. I pasted the HTML source, and it apostrophes and quotation marks didn't get formatted properly. I did want to retain the original format as much as possible, but didn't want to spend an hour getting it perfect. If the lack of punctuation bothers you please click on the link (the title is hyperlinked).
I have to start with a question that may sound rude. Most people would expect that someone writing about human sacrifice and polytheism in the Bible would be an atheist or agnostic. And yet you describe yourself as a very committed Christian. Help me put the pieces together.
Well I hail from the Stone-Campbell tradition, an anti-creedal protestant movement that is committed to discovering what the Bible says, even if what the Bible says contradicts what orthodox Christianity has historically said. That commitment to the Bible over the creeds is what underwrote my biblical studies, and ironically is what made it possible for me to come to the realization that the Bible isnt inerrant, and that what it says often depends on which book in the Bible youre reading.
At this point, many Christians would abandon their faith, because their faith is in the creeds, and in an idea of an inerrant Bible. For me on the other hand, taking the Bible seriously meant taking all of the conflicting voices within the Bible seriously, and I was able to see the value in that. What informs my faith is not so much what the Bible says as it is what the Bible displays, the processes that unfold in its pages, the struggle to find meaning that it represents. Its precisely in the humanity of the Bible that we can gain real insight into the divine. Whats revelatory is not always the words themselves, but the spaces between them.
So, based on your studies, what is the story that the Bible tells?
The Bible is sort of like a choose-your-own-adventure book, except none of the alternative storylines ever gets resolved. Thats just the thing. The Bible doesnt really tell one story. And by that I dont just mean that the Bible is a collection of different stories. I mean that the Bible consists of a spectrum of competing stories. The Bible is sort of like a choose-your-own-adventure book, except none of the alternative storylines ever gets resolved. Theyre all particular stories, about a people called Israel, their god Yahweh, and the relationship of Israel and Yahweh to the rest of the world. They all try to explain why Israel is suffering, why the world is broken, and how through the reversal of Israels fortunes the world is going to be mended, but they posit different answers to those questions.
There are several different authors trying to make sense of the same basic material, but each of them arranges it in different ways, and none of them do it just right. The royal historians declared that the Davidic dynasty would last forever, but it didnt. The prophets predicted the restoration of Israels national sovereignty, but Israel wasnt restored. Jesus predicted the end of the world as we know it, but the world as we know it didnt end.
If the Bible does tell a single story, its a story that transcends each of the stories its many authors intended to tell. It tells the story of a nation trying to contend for its survival in a hostile world and trying to explain the fact of suffering with reference to the only thing they thought could explain it: the will of Yahweh.
Who is the Yahweh of the Israelites?
Well as scholars like Frank Cross, Chris Rollston, Mark Smith and others have demonstrated and have known for some time, the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible give a strong indication that the early conception of Yahweh was that he was an ancient Near Eastern tribal deity. As I argue in my book, following Rollston, the Song of Moses in Deut 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyons children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israels patron deity, was one of Elyons children.
The best evidence suggests that Yahweh did not begin as the only true God of later Jewish monotheism; he did not begin as the creator of the world. Yahweh began as a young, up-and-coming tribal deity whose prowess among other gods mirrored Israels aspirations vis-a-vis surrounding tribes and nations.
Youre saying God evolves in the Old Testament?
Exactly. Surprise of surprises, as Israel aspired to greatness and sought to make a name for itself, surrounded by vast empires, Yahweh got bigger and bigger, until he became so grandiose in their theologies that it no longer made sense to refer to the other national deities as gods at allso vastly superior was Yahweh to the gods of other nations, according to Judean propaganda literature.
Tell us more about this evolution from tribal deity to monotheism.
Well as Chris Rollston argues, there are various stages in Israels progression from polytheism to monotheism. Yahweh begins as a junior member of the divine pantheon. This is the view during the tribal confederation period of Israels history. After Israel became a monarchy, Yahweh gets a promotion to head of the pantheon, taking his father Elyons place. (This parallels similar ideas in Babylonian literature, in which Marduks ascendancy to king of the gods mirrors the rise of the Babylonian empire.)
Over time, Yahweh and Elyon are conflated, they sort of merge into one god. At this stage Yahweh starts to be seen as creator-god. But in this period, Israel still believes in other gods; its just that theyre not supposed to worship other gods because they owed their allegiance to Yahweh, their patron deity. Of course, Yahweh was believed to have had a wife, Asherah, and it is clear that Israelites worshiped her as Yahwehs consort.
This seems to have been acceptable orthodoxy until the seventh century BCE or so. At that point, prophets like Jeremiah began to polemicize other gods, calling into doubt their very existence. This idea that Yahweh alone is God is solidified during the Babylonian exile in the sixth century, for a complex set of reasons. This is when official Israelite religion finally became monotheistic.
And early on, the chosen people practiced human sacrifice? Lets hear it; whats your evidence?
Well the evidence is complex, and I lay much of it out in my book. But the short version is that human sacrifice was a rare but widespread practice in ancient Near Eastern religion, and there is evidence that until about the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, it was an acceptable part of Israelite and Judean religion as well. Theres the story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham. It is popularly believed that because an angel prevented Abraham from killing his son at the last moment, the story constitutes a condemnation of child sacrifice. But thats not the case. Isaac is spared not because human sacrifice is seen to be immoral, but because Isaac was the child of promise and needed to survive. In reality, the account depends upon the logic of human sacrifice, because Abraham is praised for his willingness to kill his own son to appease Yahweh.
There is evidence that ancient Israelites believed that human sacrifices could be offered to Yahweh in exchange for victory in battle against their enemies. The Israelite warrior Jephthah sacrificed his virgin daughter to Yahweh in fulfillment of a vow he made in order to secure Yahwehs help in battle. The same ideology can be seen in some early accounts of the Canaanite conquest, in which Yahweh gives Israelites victory against Canaanite armies, and the Israelites in turn slaughter all of the women and children in payment to Yahweh for his aid.
Theres also evidence that Yahweh commanded human sacrifice in the law of Moses. Later, when the practice of human sacrifice fell into disrepute among elite circles, the prophet Ezekiel confirms that Yahweh commanded human sacrifice, but interprets that command as a form of punishment for Israels disobedience. Ezekiel needed a way to deal with that tradition found in Exodus 22, and did so by claiming that Yahweh ordered them to kill their firstborn sons as a way of getting back at them for their lack of faith in him. Obviously Ezekiels solution to the problem was problematic in itself, but at least we can thank him for helping to put an end to the institution of child sacrifice in Israelite religion.
Ive heard evangelicals explain that the reason God prescribed scorched earth policies in the Old Testament was because the surrounding nations were so evil that they practiced child sacrifice. (God sent warnings; they didnt heed them.) Is this just a desperate attempt to justify the unconscionable?
Yeah, well that justification is in the Bible itself, in texts that were written or edited after the institution of child sacrifice fell into disrepute. But the reality is that Israelites practiced child sacrifice too. As I argue in chapter 6 of my book, the real motivations for the conquests were much more nefarious. It had more to do with land and the consolidation of political power than anything else.
Wouldnt most Christians and Jews find this shocking?
Of course, and rightly so. It is shocking. I was shocked. But what I find even more shocking is the fact that some believers go to such great lengths to try to defend these genocides and moral atrocities. The same people who preach against the evils of abortion in the name of absolute, objective morality throw their absolute, objective morality out the window in order to defend the child-murders of an ancient tribe who thought they were doing the will of God. Thats whats most shocking to me.
I was raised that the Bible was the literally perfect, "inerrant" word of God. What you are saying sure calls into question this point of view.
I was raised to view the Bible in the same way, and it was my faith in the Bible that led me to study it. My confidence in its veracity is what led me to study it critically, assuming it would stand up to the test. Eventually I had to be honest about the facts and acknowledge that it couldnt stand up.
Youve been accused of sleeping with the enemy, so to speak. Arent you just giving ammunition to the enemies of faith?
The truth is the truth. I cant change what the truth is. If some groups want to use the truth as ammunition against other groups, thats their prerogative. I think that the truth should be used as ammunition against fundamentalist varieties of Christianity and Zionist Judaism, because such strands of the faith wreak so much havoc on the world. If they can use lead bullets to defend their ideologies, I think that justifies using truth-bullets to put as many holes as possible in their propaganda.
If believers can be blind to something as concrete as polytheism or human sacrifice in the Bible, what other cultural fragments may be there with Gods name on them?
Well, theres no escaping culturewhether its the ancient culture of Palestinian Judaism or modern cultures. All of our knowledge will always be shaped by cultural factors. Many Christians will be surprised to learn that much of Jesus teaching is derived from a standard script that scholars call Jewish apocalyptic (I talk about this in chapter 8 of my book). Jesus thinking was just as culturally conditioned as every other perspective in and outside the Bible. But that doesnt mean its useless or irrelevant as a result. We need to appropriate his insights critically, but once we do, I think well find a wealth of resources in there that transcend the limits of Jewish apocalyptic.
Is this, as Sam Harris called it, The End of Faith?
One thing that the New Atheists and fundamentalist Christians share is this either/or logic. Either Christianity is true, or it isnt. And if it isnt, then its useless. I dont buy it into that simplistic paradigm.
When were talking about an ultimate truth that may or may not lie beyond the metaphysical iron curtain, were talking about a truth that is very different from the kind of truths that can be verified or falsified by scientific procedures. Talk about this ultimate truth, or God-talk as theologians call it, is always going to be conditioned by the limits of human knowledge on this side of the curtain. As Wittgenstein put it, the limits of language are coterminous with the limits of the world. But if there is anything meaningful about our existence, it lies beyond those limits, and speaking truthfully about what lies beyond the limits of language cannot by definition entail speaking about what we can demonstrate to be true empirically.
Truthful God-talk is poetry, not scienceevocative, not descriptive. Faith is what we have when we live our lives as if they were meaningful, and Christianity offers us one language that helps us do that. Like any language, of course, there are different dialects, accents, and vocabularies. Just as with English speakers, some Christians get irony, metaphor, and humor, and others dont. Moreover, just as languages evolve to adapt to new realities and new knowledge, religions do the same, and rightly so, whether practitioners acknowledge it or not.
How should Christians read the Bible in light of this kind of scholarship?
Between the lines. Thats how they should read the Bible. Christians need to learn to appropriate our traditions God-talk both critically and constructively. As I argue in chapter 1 of my book, the Bible is an argument with itself. It doesnt have one viewpoint, but in the Bible youll find actual disputes between different personalities about the meaning of it all.
To be a Jew or Christian, to be a part of that tradition, is to participate in the argument. Its to join in. You can take up a position represented by Jesus, or by the Teacher in Ecclesiasteswhich is sharply at odds with the two other major schools of thought in the Bible. (Ive often said that if Ecclesiastes wasnt in the Bible, I wouldnt be able to call myself a Christian on most days.) Or you can come up with a new position. But to be a member of the faith community is to participate in the discussion.
I am a Christian because I believe that what our predecessors have said continues to be important to the discussion, even if what they said is sometimes dead wrong. Christians need to understand that its OK to disagree with the Bible; but, in doing so, its not OK to pretend like were not indebted to our predecessors, even when we disagree with them.
Fred Plumer at the Center for Progressive Christianity says, most of the creedal things we have been preaching and teaching in our churches have not had solid scholarly support for over fifty years (actually 100 years but [this knowledge] only got into the seminaries in the last 50). And we in the Church have not done the work required nor have we had the courage to share what so many of us have known. It sounds like you agree; is this changingis it a generational thing?
Well, I hope its changing. It may be a generational thing. But Im a realist. As much as I would like to see the end of fundamentalism, I am dubious that we ever will. I suspect there will always be fundamentalists and revivals of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is very attractive because its easy. It provides pat answers, and its much easier to navigate life with answers, even bad ones, than to try to wade through all of this ambiguity. For that reason, I am a bit pessimistic about our prospects.
Of course, that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to struggle against such simplistic ideologies and the dangers they represent. But we dont engage in the struggle because were necessarily going to win. We do it because its right.
From the above (in reference to Child Sacrifice practices by Early Israelite Religion):
Wouldn't most Christians and Jews find this shocking?
Of course, and rightly so. It is shocking. I was shocked. But what I find even more shocking is the fact that some believers go to such great lengths to try to defend these genocides and moral atrocities. The same people who preach against the evils of abortion in the name of absolute, objective morality throw their absolute, objective morality out the window in order to defend the child-murders of an ancient tribe who thought they were doing the will of God. That's whats most shocking to me.
Absolutely, and amen. Absolute objective morality of the religious apologist, is like unto the conditional love of a God that condemns the majority of creation.
"If they can use lead bullets to defend their ideologies, I think that justifies using truth-bullets to put as many holes as possible in their propaganda".
...
"As I argue in chapter 1 of my book, the Bible is an argument with itself. It doesnt have one viewpoint, but in the Bible youll find actual disputes between different personalities about the meaning of it all."
...
"As much as I would like to see the end of fundamentalism, I am dubious that we ever will. I suspect there will always be fundamentalists and revivals of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is very attractive because its easy. It provides pat answers, and its much easier to navigate life with answers, even bad ones, than to try to wade through all of this ambiguity. For that reason, I am a bit pessimistic about our prospects."
Apparently, and undesrstandably, fundamentalism is easy. Pat answers for everything Thinking not required.
Seems to me this is truly the Wide Path ...
This message has been edited by Oscar50 on Oct 24, 2010 8:54 PM
And I am glad you didn't take it as an attack on Christianity.
These are the roots. As a descendant of Europeans, I am well aware of my roots. Europeans conquered and enslaved (colonized) a lot of the world, bringing much misery. That's no attack. It's reality.
I like to think we humans have grown and evolved.
It seems some have, some haven't.
You are welcome.
To be honest, I'm just glad that some stuff I post gets read. That my interests are shared. I think that is a large part of forum life. Shared interests, and at some point, shared history.
Really. Whoa. When I read that I thought "Christian Soldier", in a good way, like Sun Tzu.
Attack the Tao? The Tao that can be attacked is not the true Tao. Hehehe. That's a 1 carat gem. A good place to bid a good evening.
But first, a remembrance of a ponder.
"The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao."
It's all of us. We are all part of the Tao. The Jackie that can be named is not the real Jackie. The Vince that can be attacked is not the real Vince. The Noob that can be ignored is not the real Noob. The Phred that can be inflamed is not the real Phred. The Mondo that can be antagonistic is not the real Mondo ..
How can common sense possibly reconcile the "God is love" and "God is omni-benevolent" notions with the numerous accounts of violence and cruelty condonded, ordered, and even performed by God ---> as recorded in the bible?
Yet, that's exactly what ardent believers do, holding on to irresolvable contradictions.
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are
.
We can attach any and all characteristics to people, and then, when things go 'wrong', claim it's all their fault - untill, of course, they materialize, then we might be in trouble if we haven't been exactly honest and made up stuff about them because what we said about them might not match with their side of the story, and more importantly, might not match with their actual behaviour - and we have to fall back on ad hoc reasoning.
.
It's the same with mythical figures. We can credit them with the most fantastic traits. After all, it is not as if they will materialize. So, we're fairly safe - we think. But we are not. We might be smart, but perhaps no as smart as we like to think we are.
Sure, we can get away with the easter bunny; the tooth fairy, IPUs - the FSM if must be - and all kinds of characters in fairy tales, which all seems innocent enough, but as soon as one of them shows up, Santa Claus comes to mind, we're phucked ~8^/ and the ad hoc reasoning comes in.
.
And then there's the gods, incl. the biblical god. We've attached to it god knows what, but forgot to make sure those characteristics and feats would not conflict, or worse; directly contradict each other. Darn! And thus ... yup, the ad hoc reasoning comes in.
Beginning to spot a tendency here already?
.
Gods, incl. the biblical one, are particulary interesting in reference to psychological projection, especially for those who do not fathom yet, because that's what the gods consist of: human projection, usually wishful thinking - no matter how twisted.
Really, when the god of choice happens to like and dislike the same things you do .... what's the mystery here?
.
It's no coincidence the gods possess human traits, perhaps even all human traits imaginable; and then some more: magic, which, again, poses no problem because gods aren't likely to materialize and flaunt their puff the magic dragon powers around, are they now?
People can be incredibly smart and wiggle their way out of seemingly impossible situations through reasoning, be it fallacious, abductive, inductive, deductive; especially believers-in whatever - but - there is one thing these smart humans always forget to think of, or so it seems; it's not what you do say, it's what you do not say.
.
The same goes for the gods; it's not what "the gods say/said", it's what the gods do not/did not say - more appropriately: what the gods fail(ed) to mention: the blatant omissions.
All through the ages in which the gods were credited with all these human traits, and magic, these smart humans forgot, to this very day, to attach one particular to any of the gods, without exception. None of the gods mentioned it; ever. Yet, it exists - and its intrinsic nature is the ultimate proof the theological gods are human projections; concoctions.
Can you guess what it is?
Hints: it's so self-evident, we by-pass it; so taken for granted, we don't notice it; so simple, we cannot think of it; so obvious, we over-look it; so straight in our face, we cannot focus; so apparent, we fail to see it - or so it seems
Hint: think the creation/flood/ark accounts
Hint: explicit entail implicit - if what is explictly posed is true then what it necessary infers or implies must be true as well - if not then there is something amiss .... ..... with the explicitly posed
*
PsychologicalProjection is a form of defense mechanism by which someone attributes thoughts, feelings, and ideas which are perceived as undesirable by and in self, to another.
In a general sense, psychologicalprojection can mean that people assume that other people share their thoughts and beliefs, good or bad. As a defense mechanism, this allows people to feel more comfortable about themselves because they think they see traits in common with others.
Projection can take a range of forms. For instance, if you find that you dislike someone, you may decide that (s)he doesn't like you, in effect responding to social norms which dictate that 'people should all like each other and get along'.
By deciding that this person doesn't like you, you can justify your decision not to like him/her, thereby setting yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy because most people end up disliking the people who dislike them, even if they didn't start out that way.
Psychological Projection may manifest in all kinds of ways, and while it may be a defense mechanism, it can also be very destructive.
.
One of the most famous concepts and insights of psychological projection is that it is 'impossible' to see a particular characteristic in someone else unless we ourselves possess that same characteristic. If we don't possess a particular characteristic, then we have no concept of it; no mental, polarized, picture of it, and renders it quite difficult to identify in another.
For example, let's say that you criticize someone as being a lazy person. Well, it would be 'impossible' for you to know or to understand what it even means to be lazy unless you yourself possessed, at least some, laziness as well.
This is a characteristic that you don't like about yourself, you see it in another, so you criticize them as being lazy.
On the other hand, someone else might see the same thing as you, but instead (s)he compliments the person as being relaxed and carefree. That someone doesn't even see the laziness, (s)he probably isn't concerned about laziness him/herself. Instead, (s)he thinks that having a relaxed and carefree attitude is an admirable trait.
What you saw as a negative trait, (s)he sees as a positive trait.
Both you and the other saw the exact same behavior, but you each "projected" your own self onto that behavior.
That's just a one example of psychological projection, and if you begin listening to what people say, that is, if you begin listening to the adjectives they use to describe other people; you will begin to see that they are often telling you nothing about the other person and almost everything about themselves.
Tag: psychological projection
0 /\ 1 2
We can be fairly sure we created "God" in our own image since "God" seems to like and dislike the same things we do. It is not as if it is mere coincidence that "God's directives" coincide with the preferences and desires of its proponents.
Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.
New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
This message has been edited by JVH on Oct 25, 2010 12:15 AM
The explicit doesn't necessarily entail the implicit... It can, but it's not always the case. As such, that introduces an amount of amibiguity to the statement that it cannot be taken as a "truth statement" even though it can be taken as a description of "the truth" that holds true at times, and not so much other times.
If you're kind enough to provide an example, I'll show what I mean.
Does this possible flaw change or influence the (truth) value of the post as whole in any way?
If so, I'd be curious about how so.
If not, what's the point? The post as a whole doesn't addresses whether explicit entails implicit the post as a whole addresses something else (the subject matter).
Always keep in mind that the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in.
It can determine its applicability. It can determine its soundness. It can determine lots of things.
"Explicit entails the implicit" is a statement that is simply hearsay until substantiated. Some discussions about the phrase will either help substantiate, or help refute, the claim. Either result is a positive step, if it is correct & "the truth".
If you wanted to engage in the discussion, you would.
October 25 2010, 12:38 PM
Behaviors are decisions as well, regardless of the planet.
Interesting that when ardent believers in [whatever] are pressed on their beliefs they either: 1) stop replying, 2) begin making absurd arguments, or 3) become beligerent and go on the attack with ad hom arguments.
"Hint: explicit entail implicit
- if what is explictly posed is true
then what it necessary infers or
implies must be true as well - if not
then there is something amiss ....
..... with the explicitly posed"
I think that's it.
About all I can see here is "inference" and "implication".
Inference, would be on the part of "passive" party. The listener, reader, observer.
Implication would be on the part of the "active" party Something unexpressed, but yet meant to be communicated.
Whether implication or inference match, or whether an implication was meant, would likely require subsequent communications. e.g. "When you say A, are you implying B, because when you say A, I infer B."
I question the premise and am asking for an example to test. We will either substatiate that premise, we'll refute it, or will learn that we still don't know.
For reasons unclear, an example is not forthcoming; which renders the statement to be a "claim without substantiation". And we know that making claims without substantiating them is a tactic of ardent believers, not a tactic of someone that pursues logic and reason.
This message has been edited by ever-a-newbie on Oct 25, 2010 1:18 PM
Claim: The explicit doesn't necessarily entail the implicit... It can, but it's not always the case.
Substantiation: None.
Claims: As such, that introduces an amount of amibiguity to the statement that it cannot be taken as a "truth statement" even though it can be taken as a description of "the truth" that holds true at times, and not so much other times.
The ol' "I know you are, but what am I?" response.
Interesting that when ardent believers in [whatever] are pressed on their beliefs they either: 1) stop replying, 2) begin making absurd arguments, or 3) become beligerent and go on the attack with ad hom arguments.
- The explicit doesn't necessarily entail the implicit... It can, but it's not always the case.
Because?
It was posed that
- As such, that introduces an amount of amibiguity to the statement that it cannot be taken as a "truth statement" even though it can be taken as a description of "the truth" that holds true at times, and not so much other times.
- it's an attempt to understand the perspective of another person.
- it's an attempt to understand another person.
- it's an attempt to explore an idea with another person.
- it's an attempt to have a friendly sociable dialog with another person.
- it's fun.
- it's interesting.
- it's something to do.
Psychology is wonderful theory, but as a soft science to talk about parts of it as "proven", seems to be akin to religious belief.
A parallel, possibly, is that we see religious belief used as a "debate" mechanism. It seems that in some instances psychological theories are used in a similar manner. With similar results, similar intentions -- by all appearances.
I would like to see some support of your assertion "on this planet psychological projection is an established phenomenon".
It's rather doubtful that it is established. Perhaps it could be phrased as "psychological projection is a widely accepted psychological theory".
Even so, it isn't a blanket theory. i.e. It does not suggest that everything people say about another, is being said about themselves unconsciously. It's a defense mechanism.
According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. 'Emotions or excitations which the ego tries to ward off are "spit out" and then felt as being outside the ego...perceived in another person'[5]. It is a common process that every person uses to some degree.[6] The related defence of 'projective identification differs from projection in that the impulse projected onto an external object does not appear as something alien and distant from the ego because the connection of the self with that projected impulse continues'[7].
To understand the process, consider a person in a couple who has thoughts of infidelity. Instead of dealing with these undesirable thoughts consciously, they unconsciously project these feelings onto the other person, and begin to think that the other has thoughts of infidelity and may be having an affair. Thus one can obtain 'acquittal by his conscience - if he projects his own impulses to faithlessness on to the partner to whom he owes faith'[8].In this sense, projection is related to denial, arguably the only defense mechanism that is more primitive than projection. Projection, like all defense mechanisms, provides a function whereby a person can protect their conscious mind from a feeling that is otherwise repulsive.
Projection can also be established as a means of obtaining or justifying certain actions that would normally be found atrocious or heinous. This often means projecting false accusations, information, etc. onto an individual for the sole purpose of maintaining a self-created illusion. One of the many problems with the process whereby 'something dangerous that is felt inside can be moved outside - a process of "projection"' - is that as a result 'the projector may become somewhat depleted and rendered limp in character, as he loses part of his personality'[9].
Compartmentalization, splitting and projection are ways that the ego continues to pretend that it is completely in control at all times, when in reality human experience is one of shifting beingness, instinctual or territorial reactiveness and emotional motives, for which the "I" is not always complicit. Further, common in deep trauma, individuals can be unable to access truthful memories, intentions and experiences, even about their own nature, wherein projection is just one tool.[10]
was born from the 1992 WTC bombing, the OKCB -(although that one was never fully exploited)- and the 9/11 attacks ... wasn't it? All three of them were black ops, perpetrated by the U.S. itself. Now you have people who hate Muslims bad but no amount of evidence will loosen their hate any more.
I have a friend -a former minister- who, at one time ALMOST became deconverted but then, possibly got scared when I DID deconvert ... and he's gone back to being a quasi-Christian again.
This guy HATES Muslims. Occasionally he'll go into a rant on what Muslims are doing to this country with their insistence on practicing Sharia law etc. but I wonder if he'd have that same hatred if none of the black op events had occurred in the U.S. ... especially 9/11.
The truth about the Muslim faith is that it's more humanely oriented than Christianity. They don't practice usery ... don't exploit their faithful as Christians do ... and actually seem to practice a custom of nurturing community.
Take Iran for example ...
They have to IMPORT 40% of their gasoline but ... they sell it to their own people for 40 cents a gallon. Now WHEN would we ever see such "concern" for Canadians or Americans? Heck, Canada has the world's second largest petroleum reserves and we pay around $4.50 a gallon for gas.
Goes back much further than that. I can't remember Arabs ever being portrayed in a positive light. Think back to Lawrence of Arabia, or any other films, books. Maybe "Aladdin"?
You might find this interesting:
This groundbreaking documentary dissects a slanderous aspect of cinematic history that has run virtually unchallenged from the earliest days of silent film to todays biggest Hollywood blockbusters.
But I think there ARE movies which were more balanced. Lawrence of Arabia, for example, portrays Peter O'toole as an eccentric weirdo (which Lawrence himself, apparently WAS) ... and so, by association, his Arab friends might seem to have been equally crazy but .. it also portrays these same Arabs as people with plans and brains and a sense of fairness who helped the allies overthrow the Ottoman Empire ... but who were then blatantly double-crossed by the British and French governments whom they'd helped.
It's a bit of an odd experience to watch Lawrence of Arabia BECAUSE of the stereotype that's been drilled into us by Hollywood.
PsychologicalProjection is a form of defense mechanism by which someone attributes thoughts, feelings, and ideas which are perceived as undesirable by and in self, to another.
In a general sense, psychologicalprojection can mean that people assume that other people share their thoughts and beliefs, good or bad. As a defense mechanism, this allows people to feel more comfortable about themselves because they think they see traits in common with others.
Projection can take a range of forms. For instance, if you find that you dislike someone, you may decide that (s)he doesn't like you, in effect responding to social norms which dictate that 'people should all like each other and get along'.
By deciding that this person doesn't like you, you can justify your decision not to like him/her, thereby setting yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy because most people end up disliking the people who dislike them, even if they didn't start out that way.
Psychological Projection may manifest in all kinds of ways, and while it may be a defense mechanism, it can also be very destructive.
.
One of the most famous concepts and insights of psychological projection is that it is 'impossible' to see a particular characteristic in someone else unless we ourselves possess that same characteristic. If we don't possess a particular characteristic, then we have no concept of it; no mental, polarized, picture of it, and renders it quite difficult to identify in another.
For example, let's say that you criticize someone as being a lazy person. Well, it would be 'impossible' for you to know or to understand what it even means to be lazy unless you yourself possessed, at least some, laziness as well.
This is a characteristic that you don't like about yourself, you see it in another, so you criticize them as being lazy.
On the other hand, someone else might see the same thing as you, but instead (s)he compliments the person as being relaxed and carefree. That someone doesn't even see the laziness, (s)he probably isn't concerned about laziness him/herself. Instead, (s)he thinks that having a relaxed and carefree attitude is an admirable trait.
What you saw as a negative trait, (s)he sees as a positive trait.
Both you and the other saw the exact same behavior, but you each "projected" your own self onto that behavior.
That's just a one example of psychological projection, and if you begin listening to what people say, that is, if you begin listening to the adjectives they use to describe other people; you will begin to see that they are often telling you nothing about the other person and almost everything about themselves.
He's right about the religion changing in the 6th/7th century but ... in my opinion, Yahveh wasn't even IN their stories or worship prior to this time. He was written into their stories by the scribes of the new religion AT THE TIME the religion was changed.
It was changed because it was written down. Before 700 BC the Hebrews had no writing. They simply memorized their stories and passed them down from generation to generation. So when "the book of the law" was written for the first time, it contained their old stories but had Yahveh written in as the principle actor.
Was their OLD religion better than the Yahveh religion? It depends. It was more care-free but also involved human sacrificing. With the injection of Yahveh and the "law of Moses" the new religion became extremely controlling and suppressive.
You still have a bit of overlap expressed in the beginning of Judges where ... the fellow Jepthah was overcome by the spirit of "Yahveh" -(Judges 11:29)- but then later sacrificed his daughter to Yahveh .... and Yahveh never protested. Since Yahveh later railed against the practice of sacrificing children to the god Molech, we can assume that either Yahveh changed his mind gradually or .... he was written INTO the story of Jepthah later ... when/while this hero originally worshiped another god.
I really DON'T think the NTestament followers of the way WERE worshiping Yahveh anymore. Yahveh is never mentioned in the NTestament. Yahveh was NOT a good guy. I think the Jews secretly hated him. Only the priesthood loved Yahveh because it gave them absolute power.
![[linked image]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc319/8-DJ/truth-itworks.gif)
.... on this planet psychological projection is an established phenomenon. 
