Passing the buck—piling personal guilt upon an innocent victim and then punishing the victim—has a long bible-approved history. In the book of Leviticus, for example (one of the most despicable texts ever passed off as “holy writ”), we are told: “And he shall take two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent (or tabernacle) of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one for the Lord, and the other for Azazel.” (Leviticus 16:7-8)
This takes place when the Israelites were supposedly wandering around “in the wilderness,” and we should remember that a tent (tabernacle) is not a structure for permanent lodging. In prehistory lore, heavily banked with superstition, the term “wilderness” was used as an insider reference to prephysical energy conditions out of which material-matter forms are made manifest. Nowhere in Hebrew or Jewish myth is it ever explained why “the Lord”—a self-avowed jealous god—would sanction such a custom that offered an equal part to some entity named Azazel. The answer rests in the fact that “the Lord” and “Azazel” represent the two polar energy exchange points between which everything is activated as Creation. In fact, the name Azazel means, “God strengthens.”
In the scapegoat ritual conducted by the priests in this holy presentation, one of the two selected goats was led into an actual wilderness area to be staked out for some wild beast to devour. This literal interpretation of older, more scientific understanding was a failure to understand the true principles that activate Creation. Later, in Judea the priests interpreted Azazel as the unrepentant “fallen angel,” and in devotion to this corrupt interpretation dragged the hapless scapegoat to the Judean desert cliff where “…the scapegoat for Azazel yearly fell to its death on the Day of Atonement” (Leviticus 16:8-10). Spoken of as a “fallen angel,” the priests could then sidestep the prohibition in Leviticus against sacrificing to demons under the pretense that Azazel had simply erred in giving proper respect to “the Lord” and was imprisoned beneath the jagged rocks at the base of the cliff.
In no way can this be legitimately called a moral act: the implication in the ritual is that god sees nothing corrupt in trying to pass responsibility of one’s acts upon an innocent victim. This sanctioned and practiced denial of accepting personal responsibility for one’s acts is continuously expressed with most characters from the Old Testament. In the priest’s understanding of the polar energy exchangethat is the operative means of matter manifestation, the principle became tragically misconstrued as one extremity being thought of as good and the other being evil. That blunder in comprehension of how energy manifests as matter-forms has infected western religions to this day. What organized religions must learn from science is that the creative forces responsible for matter and life are not now and never have been in hostile combat.
Tribal mentality in early biblical times felt no uneasiness in letting an innocent victim pay for their ignoble deeds. It was a popular devotional indulgence not only among the Judeans but most neighboring cultures as well. Unfortunately, as the Christian movement was being fashioned, that popular notion of an innocent life being sacrificed to absolve another’s guilt was the basis for the most devout rituals of the year, and often a human was slain to appease a god that was imagined to be disheartened by the people’s conduct. From this widespread acceptance of sacrificing innocence for the preservation of those responsible for moral failure, the emerging hybrid movement sought to lure new converts with the “son of god” who came forth as a willing sacrifice to atone for all mankind’s sins.
Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog 