In God's Kingdom, CONFUSION reigns!

"In essence, it is no more than a presentation of a whole series of individually differing, contradictory suggestions, apparently all at variance with each other, differently directed, and requiring a constant shift in orientation by the subject. "



"As the subject accommodates himself to the seeming confusion..., thereby unwittingly cooperating in a significant fashion..."



"As the subject tries, conditioned by his early cooperative response to the ..apparent misspeaking, to accommodate himself to the welter of confused, contradictory responses apparently sought, he finds himself at such a loss that he welcomes anv positive suggestion that will permit a retreat from so unsatisfying and confusing a situation. The rapidity, insistence, and confidence with which the suggestions are given serve to prevent the subject from making any effort to bring about a semblance of order. At best, he can only try to accommodate himself and, thus, yield to the over-all significance of the total series of suggestions. "



"These suggestions are also recognized as carrying a weight of acceptable meaningfulness, and every effort the subject makes to understand it leads to acceptance of them."



"These suggestions are given not in the form of commands or instructions but as thought-provoking comments, at first. Then, as the subject begins to respond, a slow, progressive shift is made to direct suggestions.. "


from here

Theists will poo-poo the notion that they are being hypnotized. I can't imagine why they would do that though, can you? Religious leaders would certainly be able to keep better control of their flocks if, when being sermonized to, the flock were in a suggestible state.

The Godly Hebrews, according to the Bible, did the Godly thing, slaughtering in the name of God, but of course this is childs-play to counter! God himself saw their incorrigible evil and commissioned the Hebrews in HIS NAME to wipe their presence from the land that HE gave the Hebrews!

Any Christian would be more than willing to accept an explanation like that if he/she believes that Godly is good.

This is obvious stuff, obvious confusion technique where the recorded atrocious acts of the Hebrews can't be put down to them 'not being truly Godly' as is done with modern day genocidal religious fanatics. In the Bible, God not only wanted them to commit atrocious acts, HE commanded them!

But I wanted to talk about a more subtle confusion technique that modern religious leaders perpetrate today.

The pro-life movement takes it's cue from religious leaders who presumably feel that they are supported by the Bible using this vague, all encompassing quote, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."

But every Christian worthy of being called a Christian ought to know, and believe me that they DO KNOW, when it suits them, that the Gospels are backed up by the entire Old Testament, the truth of the Gospels falls if the truth of the Old Testament falls because then the prophecies prophesying the coming Jesus(as Christians would have it) would be meaningless.

I don't want to get into 'context wars' with Christians here, so I'll say that the context of the Old Testament PROVES the context of the New Testament to the Christians themselves.

Here's the crux of the confusion, if God related his LAWS to Moses, then left it to priests to pass that on, and to fathers to pass that on(which is kind of obvious, still happens today), THEN the father of a household is given complete authority over his children, to the point of stoning that child to DEATH for disobeying HIM, never mind GOD!

If a girl got pregnant out of wedlock then the father would have every religious right to have her stoned to DEATH! The notion that the fetus would die too doesn't even enter the equation.

The girl was a slut! The girl committed adultery! She disobeyed her fathers instructions to NOT do this.

Under GOD'S LAW, she ought to be condemned.

To stand at your altar and expound to your flock that they were 'funny old days' and we should pay that 'no never mind' is confusingly OPPOSITE to invoking the EXACT SAME GOD'S LAW trying to justify that fertilized human eggs are SACRED!

The whole notion that life is sacred and can be TERMINATED only for sacred reasons is just one example of priests/clergymen talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

The idea that the Old Testament's context proves the New Testament's context yet they were silly old buggers in silly old times, and that GOD'S LAW is changed now, but is the SAME(when you feel like it) is OPPOSITE, which is confusion technique, pure and simple.