Christian. Would you teach your child to use a scapegoat at

Christian. Would you teach your child to use a scapegoat at school?

If not, why do you give your child an example of you doing that immoral thing by planning to use Jesus as your scapegoat?

It is a part of your theology and personal plan to try to take advantage of God sacrificing his son, while at the same time telling your children not to do so at school and man up.

Is it moral for you to say to your child, do as I say and not as I plan to do?

In effect, that is what you Christian parents are doing and showing a corrupt double standard of morality.

Is that good parenting to you?

Care to look at the poor justice of such a policy?


I’m not God, and neither would my son be. Why would the situations be even remotely comparable? Moreover, scapegoating has nothing to do with ‘blaming somebody for things they didn’t do’, it was a specific Jewish ritual (those guys you seem fond of) which was a prelude to what would happen with Christ.

Using a scapegoat at school for a child or having the parent using Jesus is totally comparable.

It is not blaming people for what they did not do. You are correct. It is taking the responsibility for what you did and placing it on an innocent man or goat for punishment.

Scapegoating is a cowardly act when using humans.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


No. That's what we take it to mean [i]now[/i], in a secular society.  You're equivocating.   Biblical, scapegoating was a very real mystical thing where the sins of a community were ritually put-upon a goat, and the goat was sent out of the community, their sins with it.   It's not a psychological thing, it's not saying, "Man, I really hate that goat, let's tell everybody he broke the window". 

Jesus’ Crucifixion is an example of the previous sort- an actual mystical thing where the wages of sin were put upon Him instead of the world. The responsibility of our sins haven’t been put upon Jesus. Find me a Christian that thinks Jesus is responsible for our sins. That’s not the Christian message in the least.

No. That is just your “scapegoat”. I already explained the difference to you.

That was me!

I did not use the word responsible as it pertains to Jesus and our sins.
I used it as us laying our responsibilities on him. He is not culpable. We are.

That is the point. We are all responsible for our own sins and to embrace human sacrifice or the notion that an innocent man should die for our sins is quite immoral. Yet most Christians are lining up to do just that immoral thing.

They plan on riding their scapegoat into heaven.


Again, as long as you think ‘we are responsible for our sins’ is some new concept you’re introducing that Christians didn’t understand until you brought it up, you aren’t interacting with the Christian concept of what the crucifixion was about. Christians don’t put the responsibility for their actions on Jesus. That’s not a Christian teaching.

Good. Then Jesus did not sacrifice himself for them and they are on their own as it should be. May as well take Jesus right out of the bible as he is just another prophet with poor moral tenets.

Strange how all those churches fly that cross though.


I don’t have any vested interest in correcting your misconceptions, I’m just here to point out to all that that’s what they are. In that light, the above doesn’t accomplish anything- yes, go be foolish, that’s fine.

What was you? :-s

I’m the one that explained to him the difference between a biblical scapegoat and his idea of one.

Y’all seem to be talking past each other.

I think the Christians Greatest is talking to are those that hold to Penal Substitution, or some type of “Substitutionary atonement.”

The problem that Greastest seems to be having is lumping all Christians together. Not all Christians hold to Penal Sub.

And hey, give me a break. I was raised on penal sub. But first I was indoctrinated with the guilt of being born a hopeless sinner. So, as I was eventually taught, my only hope was the propitiation of the cross of Jesus … as the Bible states:

i John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

But since then I have found that not all Christians hold to these doctrines.

I especially would advise taking a gander at :
“Original Blessing,” by Matthew Fox:

Also, check out Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Oh… well I won’t look to see who said it first. 8-[

I’ve learned to not ask for what Catholic Priests think because, like Atheist priests, thinking just isn’t their talent.

Greatest I Am, sometimes it is better to say nothing at all and so here it is

Throwing one last stone on the way out. Chastisement without correction. How Christian.


Almost no Christian doctrine is universal to Christianity since they have so many divided from their house but scapegoating or substitutionary atonement is in damned near all of them. There are few that do not rely on Jesus as there are few Universalist Christian groups.

My Gnostic Christianity is one of the few and the only one that I know of that embraces women and gays as equal. We all have a spark of God within us. No exceptions.


Greatest I am

No, I would not teach my child to use a scapegoat or to be a scapegoat.
Perhaps you would prefer the word 'Messiah" or “Savior” in dealing with Christ.
Seeing Christ as a scapegoat in actuality is a pretty negative kind of lens in which to see him.
Let me ask you a question. If you have a child and that child is in danger, would you consider the policeperson or the firefighter who saves your child to be a scapegoat? Would you consider that they consider their selves to be scapegoats? Or would you rather think that they were just doing what they felt “called” to be doing (their mission in life) and perhaps even felt blessed in doing it? Not a good example I realize, but it might help you to see things differently.

The church does not teach that Christ was responsible for our sins - responsible in the sense of humanity’s sins being the fault of Christ. But it does teach that Christ “took” on the sins of humanity. There is a distinction and I think that most christians get this distinction. It does teach that the second person of the blessed trinity) out of love for humanity deemed to take upon our sins (Christ’s choice) in order to open the gates of heaven and to wash away the sin of original sin (through baptism).
People tend to believe what they choose to believe if it suits their purpose…whether it be christians themselves or those who hate and/or misunderstand christianity.
Many people actually even blame the mythological Adam and Eve for what goes on today. lol. Believe it or not. Anything to draw away responsibility for the things which we do in life.

Not true actually. For those who DO believe, they do believe that Christ DID actually sacrifice himself for them. Many are grateful for that and some are not. Who knows what the ratio is. Christ is not a scapegoat or a weakling or a wimp because of this. He’s a savior. Many Jews could not recognize Christ as such because they were expecting a king or a ubermensch. lol
It all comes down to the way you view things and I think a lot of that is dependent on our own personal psychology.

And most do not believe that that is the end of it, that they have to do nothing more to gain heaven. Only those, like yourself, who have a poor understanding of catholocism or christianity. At least it seems that way to me.

Well, human or divine or both who knows. But what poor moral tenets are you speaking about here?

You’re not seeing it from a spiritual or supernatural perspective. You’re only seeing it in human terms. You can’t judge in human terms the son of God, Christ, dying for our sins as being immoral. From the christian perspective, it was Christ’s choice and he gladly did it. That doesn’t mean that all christians feel that a god should have died for their sins.
No moral or ethical person is going to feel that an innocent person ought to die for our sins or stupidity or irresponsibility.
I’m not even a christian anymore - I’m an agnostic but you seem to forget that there are many people who think that others ought to be responsible for their indiscretions and transgressions and immorality…instead of they themselves.

There is a word for that. It’s called the sin of presumption when one thinks that they have nothing more to do - they can now sin all they want and they have been redeemed - Christ did it all. The church doesn’t go along with this. And most christians don’t either. This is also why they have the sacrament of Confession. The church realizes that people are only human. The Crucifixion and Resurrection does not automatically exonerate people from their sins (I hate that word) which they commit. And blaming our humanity is also not a good reason to make others responsible for what we do. I daresay that christians are not the only ones with that perspective. It’s called a character flaw and not such a simple one. When was the last time you yourself held someone else responsible for something you did or caused to happen, GIA. Never?

Perhaps you ought to step into a christian or a catholic church for a few sundays and read the readings and listen to the homilies. You might learn something.


Try to stop throwing stones out and throw out a pearl or two.

But what do you mean by chastisement without correction? I wouldn’t want to be made an ass of.