BLOOD
ON THE ALTAR
The Coming War Between Christian vs. Christian
Posted: May 25, 2014
8:00 am Eastern
by Thomas Horn
Reblogged from Raiders News Update
COMING UP IN NEXT ENTRY: How Technology Will Provide Conditions for a Global "Lucifer Effect"
[vii]
Charles
L.
Sheridan
and
Richard
King
Jr.,
“Obedience
to
Authority
with
an
Authentic
Victim,”
http://www.holah.co.uk/files/sheridan_king_1972.pdf.
The Coming War Between Christian vs. Christian
Posted: May 25, 2014
8:00 am Eastern
by Thomas Horn
Reblogged from Raiders News Update
| Similar to the findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment but in many ways more disturbing was the 1961 “Milgram Experiment” that has since been repeated on numerous occasions with consistent results. |  |
The
Milgram
test
measured
the
willingness
of
participants
to
obey
authority
figures
who
ordered
them
to
go
against
expected
restrictions
of
human
conscience
in
performing
acts
of
cruelty
against
other
study
participants.
The
original
tests
began
at
Yale
University
in
the
early
1960s
under
psychologist
Stanley
Milgram.
At
the
time,
it
was
just
three
months
into
the
trial
of
Nazi
war
criminal
Otto
Adolf
Eichmann,
a
German
Nazi
colonel
deemed
highly
responsible
for
organizing
the
Holocaust,
and
Milgram
had
designed
his
test
to
try
to
answer
the
burning
question
on
people’s
minds
then:
“Could
it
be
that
Eichmann
and
his
million
accomplices
in
the
Holocaust
were
just
following
orders?”[i]
Milgram
came
to
believe
that
much
of
that
sentiment
was
true,
and
that
“the
essence
of
obedience
consists
in
the
fact
that
a
person
comes
to
view
himself
as
the
instrument
for
carrying
out
another
person’s
wishes,
and
he
therefore
no
longer
regards
himself
as
responsible
for
his
actions.”[ii]
Milgram
first
described
his
research
in
1963
in
the
Journal
of
Abnormal
and
Social
Psychology,
then
later
in
greater
detail
in
his
1974
book,
Obedience
to
Authority:
An
Experimental
View.
Milgram
explained
how
participants
were
taken
into
a
laboratory
and,
in
the
context
of
a
learning
experiment,
were
told
to
give
increasingly
severe
electrical
shocks
to
another
person
(who
was
actually
an
actor).
The
purpose
of
the
assessment
was
to
see
how
far
a
subject
would
proceed
before
refusing
to
comply
with
the
experimenter’s
instructions.
The
test
used
three
individuals:
#1
was
THE
EXPERIMENTER—the
authority
figure
running
the
trial;
#2
was
THE
LEARNER—an
actor
pretending
to
be
a
test
subject;
and
#3
was
THE
TEACHER—a
volunteer who believed he or she was actually to administer voltage
to
THE
LEARNER
whenever
he
or
she
failed
to
answer
a
question
correctly.
The
wiki
on
the
way
this
test
proceeded
says
the
TEACHER
and
the
LEARNER
(actor)
both
drew
slips
of
paper
to
determine
their
roles,
but
unknown
to
the
TEACHER,
both
slips
said
“teacher.”
The
actor
would
always
claim
to
have
drawn
the
slip
that
read
“learner,”
thus
guaranteeing
that
the
unwitting
volunteer
would
always
be
the
“teacher.”
At
this
point,
the
“teacher”
and
“learner”
were
separated
into
different
rooms
where
they
could
communicate
but
not
see
each
other.
In
one
version
of
the
experiment,
the
confederate
was
sure
to
mention
to
the
participant
that
he
had
a
heart
condition.
The
“teacher”
was
given
an
electric
shock
from
the
electro-shock
generator
as
a
sample
of
the
shock
that
the
“learner”
would
supposedly
receive
during
the
experiment.
The
“teacher”
was
then
given
a
list
of
word
pairs
which
he
was
to
teach
the
learner.
The
teacher
began
by
reading
the
list
of
word
pairs
to
the
learner.
The
teacher
would
then
read
the
first
word
of
each
pair
and
read
four
possible
answers.
The
learner
would
press
a
button
to
indicate
his
response.
If
the
answer
was
incorrect,
the
teacher
would
administer
a
shock
to
the
learner,
with
the
voltage
increasing
in
15-volt
increments
for
each
wrong
answer.
If
correct,
the
teacher
would
read
the
next
word
pair.
The
subjects
believed
that
for
each
wrong
answer,
the
learner
was
receiving
actual
shocks.
In
reality,
there
were
no
shocks.
After
the
confederate
was
separated
from
the
subject,
the
confederate
set
up
a
tape
recorder
integrated
with
the
electro-shock
generator,
which
played
pre-recorded
sounds
for
each
shock
level.
After
a
number
of
voltage
level
increases,
the
actor
started
to
bang
on
the
wall
that
separated
him
from
the
subject.
After
several
times
banging
on
the
wall
and
complaining
about
his
heart
condition,
all
responses
by
the
learner
would
cease.
At
this
point,
many
people
indicated
their
desire
to
stop
the
experiment
and
check
on
the
learner.
Some
test
subjects
paused
at
135
volts
and
began
to
question
the
purpose
of
the
experiment.
Most
continued
after
being
assured
that
they
would
not
be
held
responsible.
A
few
subjects
began
to
laugh
nervously
or
exhibit
other
signs
of
extreme
stress
once
they
heard
the
screams
of
pain
coming
from
the
learner.
If
at
any
time
the
subject
indicated
his
desire
to
halt
the
experiment,
he
was
given
a
succession
of
verbal
prods
by
the
experimenter,
in
this
order:
Please
continue.
The
experiment
requires
that
you
continue.
It
is
absolutely
essential
that
you
continue.
You
have
no
other
choice,
you
must
go
on.
If
the
subject
still
wished
to
stop
after
all
four
successive
verbal
prods,
the
experiment
was
halted.
Otherwise,
it
was
halted
after
the
subject
had
given
the
maximum
450-volt
shock
three
times
in
succession.
The
experimenter
also
gave
special
prods
if
the
teacher
made
specific
comments.
If
the
teacher
asked
whether
the
learner
might
suffer
permanent
physical
harm,
the
experimenter
replied,
“Although
the
shocks
may
be
painful,
there
is
no
permanent
tissue
damage,
so
please
go
on.”
If
the
teacher
said
that
the
learner
clearly
wants
to
stop,
the
experimenter
replied,
“Whether
the
learner
likes
it
or
not,
you
must
go
on
until
he
has
learned
all
the
word
pairs
correctly,
so
please
go
on.”[iii]
 |
| The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.[iv] |
The
amazing
findings
from
this
experiment
tallied
65
percent
of
the
volunteers
(including
women)
administering
the
final,
massive,
450-volt
shock
even
though
they
exhibited
signs
that
they
were
uncomfortable
doing
so
(pausing,
questioning,
sweating,
trembling,
biting
their
lips,
digging
their
fingernails
into
their
skin,
and/or
laughing
nervously),
but
in
the
end
they
did
it
anyway
on
the
advice
of
the
authority
figure
(the
experimenter).
When
some
ethical
criticisms
were
made
in
opposition
to
Milgram
following
his
original
study
and
conclusions
(which
have
since
been
repeated
around
the
world
in
different
social
settings
with
similar
results),
he
said
he
believed
the
arguments
developed
because
his
research
revealed
something disturbing and unwelcome about human nature. He
then
summarized
his
findings
and
warned
in
his
1974
article,
“The
Perils
of
Obedience”:
The
legal
and
philosophic
aspects
of
obedience
are
of
enormous
importance,
but
they
say
very
little
about
how
most
people
behave
in
concrete
situations.
I
set
up
a
simple
experiment
at
Yale
University
to
test
how
much
pain
an
ordinary
citizen
would
inflict
on
another
person
simply
because
he
was
ordered
to
by
an
experimental
scientist.
Stark
authority
was
pitted
against
the
subjects’
[participants’]
strongest
moral
imperatives
against
hurting
others,
and,
with
the
subjects’
[participants’]
ears
ringing
with
the
screams
of
the
victims,
authority
won
more
often
than
not.
The
extreme
willingness
of
adults
to
go
to
almost
any
lengths
on
the
command
of
an
authority
constitutes
the
chief
finding
of
the
study
and
the
fact
most
urgently
demanding
explanation.
Ordinary
people,
simply
doing
their
jobs,
and
without
any
particular
hostility
on
their
part,
can
become
agents
in
a
terrible
destructive
process.
Moreover,
even
when
the
destructive
effects
of
their
work
become
patently
clear,
and
they
are
asked
to
carry
out
actions
incompatible
with
fundamental
standards
of
morality,
relatively
few
people
have
the
resources
needed
to
resist
authority.[v]
Besides
similarities
between
the
Milgram
and
Stanford
experiments,
Philip
Zimbardo
reveals
that
none
of
the
few
participants
who
refused
to
administer
the
final
shocks
in
the
Milgram
test
insisted
that
the
experiment
itself
be
shut
down.
And
when
they
were
finished
with
their
participation,
none
bothered
to
check
the
health
of
the
victim
they
believed
was
potentially
severely
traumatized
and/or
physically
harmed.[vi]
Years
later,
when
researchers
Charles
Sheridan
and
Richard
King
speculated
that
some
of
the
Milgram
Experiment
volunteers
in
the
role
of
TEACHER
may
have
suspected
their
victims
were
faking
the
trauma,
they
set
up
a
similar
trial
using
a
“cute,
fluffy
puppy,”
which
obviously
would
not
know
how
to
“fake
it.”
In
this
case,
the
electrical
shocks
were
real—albeit,
unknown
to
the
participants,
harmless.
Their
findings—published
as
“Obedience
to
Authority
with
an
Authentic
Victim”—were
reported
during
the
proceedings
of
the
eightieth
annual
convention
of
the
American
Psychological
Association
and
surprisingly
verified
Milgram’s
conclusion.
As
in
the
Yale
University
experimentation,
most
subjects
in
the
Sheridan-King
research
illustrated
high
levels
of
distress
during
the
ordeal,
yet
50
percent
of
the
male
subjects
and
100
percent
of
the
females
obeyed
the
authority
figure
and
continued
to
“electrocute”
the
puppy
until
the
end.[vii]
Not
to
be
redundant,
but
again,
what
could
this
research
suggest
the
majority
of
people
might
be
willing
to
do
when
the
utmost
fearsome
“authority
figure”
ever
to
walk
planet
earth
arrives
(a
time
when
Jesus
said
people’s
hearts
will
fail
them
for
fear
[see
Luke
21:26])
and
begins
ordering
his
followers
to
kill
all
who
will
not
accept
his
leadership?COMING UP IN NEXT ENTRY: How Technology Will Provide Conditions for a Global "Lucifer Effect"
[i]
Harold
M.
Schulweis,
Conscience:
The
Duty
to
Obey
and
the
Duty
to
Disobey
(Jewish
Lights
Publishing,
2010)
Google
eBook,
106
(retrieved
February
6,
2014).
[ii]
Ibid.
[iii]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_
experiment#cite_note-7.
experiment#cite_note-7.
[iv]
Ibid.
[v]
Stanley
Milgram,
The
Perils
of
Obedience,”
http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys4910/
readings/ethics/PerilsofObedience.html.
readings/ethics/PerilsofObedience.html.
[vi]
“The
Milgram
Experiment,”
Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#cite_ref-11.
