Necessary Requirement for Christianity?

[POI]

For Debate:

1) Is cognitive dissonance a necessary requirement to retain a position of team-Christianity?
2) If not, please explain why not?
3) If yes, please explain exactly why you choose to retain team-Christianity?

****************************

I'd hypothesize the answer is (yes) to question 1). Case/point, the mere fact one comes to the defense, or to offer apologetics, to defend certain passages of the Bible, is one of the tell-tales. Doing so suggests what is plainly written in the Bible sometimes does not directly align with the moral compass of the one(s) coming to the Bible's defense. Therefore, 'explanations', or as I see it, excuses, is/are given to make it more comfortable for the one(s) choosing to continue holding this position.

[1213]

3) If yes, please explain exactly why you choose to retain team-Christianity?

I choose to be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"), because I think the teachings of Jesus are great.

[TRANSPONDER]

So did Jefferson. As I recall, he ripped all the supernatural stuff out of the Bible but retained the Bible apart from that because he thaught the teaching (as social law) were the best.

And it's a fair point - for that time. On my Other site, one apologist made the point that the Church was the basis of learning up to the Renaissance. But after that it was increasingly pushing back against scientific discovery that made it out of date, and Dogma does not like to change.

So for Jefferson maybe Jesus' teachings were great, but they are failing now. Of course the writers of the 1st - 2nd c AD were putting into Jesus' mouth what they considered the best morals of the time. But in the 19th c, science was going beyond the Bible, and it either had to adapt and accept a round earth, deep time geology and evolution or push back against it.

In the 20th and later c, morals have gone beyond not only the OT but the NT. Jesus' teachings are no longer good enough. Frankly, Jesus should not have told the woman to sin no more, but the teachers of the law that this was either her own business and not theirs, or it was legitimate work and they should legislate as such. And this is just one aspect where the law is lagging behind the progress of human social morality and the morals and ethics of the NT and Jesus' teachings are no longer Great or even relevant.

Certainly not enough to excuse cognitive dissonance over bas stuff, science denial and blatant contradiction in the Bible.

Or, at least to anyone with the ability to still make an impartial judgement on this; we know that the Believer will dismiss even what the Bible actually says if it doesn't suit their preferences. Even chop up and rearrange the text to try to make it work so as to eliminate a contradiction. Not so much cognitive dissonance but conniving disinformation.

[POI]

3) If yes, please explain exactly why you choose to retain team-Christianity?

I choose to be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"), because I think the teachings of Jesus are great.

Well then, at least you are honest. I give you props for that.... This would explain all the cognitive dissonance, clearly on display, regarding the many other threads in which you offer an exchange.

You then are a prime example, that it does take much cognitive dissonance to remain on team-Christianity.

[bjs1]

For Debate:
1) Is cognitive dissonance a necessary requirement to retain a position of team-Christianity?
2) If not, please explain why not?

No. Christianity, at least in its orthodox form, is a coherent and consistent worldview.

I'd hypothesize the answer is (yes) to question 1). Case/point, the mere fact one comes to the defense, or to offer apologetics, to defend certain passages of the Bible, is one of the tell-tales. Doing so suggests what is plainly written in the Bible sometimes does not directly align with the moral compass of the one(s) coming to the Bible's defense. Therefore, 'explanations', or as I see it, excuses, is/are given to make it more comfortable for the one(s) choosing to continue holding this position.

Would you apply this standard universally? If a charge is brought against atheism and someone says, “That’s not true,” or “That’s not what atheists believe,” then would you say that being an atheist requires cognitive dissonance?


To put it another way, here is the underlying problem: If someone else does not agree or does not understand Christianity that cannot be a reason to accuse Christians of cognitive dissonance.
In this case, you may substitute “Atheism” or “Buddhism” or any other worldview for the word “Christian” in the above sentence.

[POI]

For Debate:
1) Is cognitive dissonance a necessary requirement to retain a position of team-Christianity?
2) If not, please explain why not?

No. Christianity, at least in its orthodox form, is a coherent and consistent worldview.

I find that to retain faith in any version of Christianity requires dissonance. The topic of slavery alone is a testament to this fact.

Would you apply this standard universally? If a charge is brought against atheism and someone says, “That’s not true,” or “That’s not what atheists believe,” then would you say that being an atheist requires cognitive dissonance?

I admit I carry a cognitive dissonance, when it comes to eating meat, politics, etc. yes. But with religion, no. I reject all of them equally, in favor of retaining consistent logic instead.

[Tcg]

I admit I carry a cognitive dissonance, when it comes to eating meat, politics, etc. yes. But with religion, no. I reject all of them equally, in favor of retaining consistent logic instead.

This resonates with me very well. I was "blessed" with a brain that wants to figure things out. If something doesn't add up I search for a resolution until I either find one or conclude the concept makes no logical sense. This was Christianity for me. It didn't add up even though I desperately wanted it too. After about a ten-year search for a logical resolve, after 40 years as a Christian, I abandoned the whole thing. My doubt was there for a valid reason, and I couldn't ignore the reality that Christianity is filled with logical holes. Nothing about it adds up. It's not even close.


Tcg

[theophile]

For Debate:

1) Is cognitive dissonance a necessary requirement to retain a position of team-Christianity?
2) If not, please explain why not?
3) If yes, please explain exactly why you choose to retain team-Christianity?

****************************

I'd hypothesize the answer is (yes) to question 1). Case/point, the mere fact one comes to the defense, or to offer apologetics, to defend certain passages of the Bible, is one of the tell-tales. Doing so suggests what is plainly written in the Bible sometimes does not directly align with the moral compass of the one(s) coming to the Bible's defense. Therefore, 'explanations', or as I see it, excuses, is/are given to make it more comfortable for the one(s) choosing to continue holding this position.

I find it very confusing how "coming to the defense" of something implies cognitive dissonance. Doesn't it more likely mean that you believe in what is being said than that you're jumping through hoops to try and explain it?

Take your obvious example of slavery for instance. The bible calls us to servanthood. To serve all, most especially the lowest rungs of society who tend to be neglected and without care. As rightly labelled by atheist critics like Nietzsche, Christianity is a slave morality. It is for slaves (/the downtrodden) and teaches us to enslave ourselves. I believe this and (pace Nietzsche) that this is what we should do. So why would I speak out against the biblical laws condoning it? To do so would be the real cognitive dissonance.

Now chattel slavery, that is something different altogether. This is not an excuse but simple fact, and being clear on what slavery was in Ancient Israel.

[POI]

For Debate:

1) Is cognitive dissonance a necessary requirement to retain a position of team-Christianity?
2) If not, please explain why not?
3) If yes, please explain exactly why you choose to retain team-Christianity?

****************************

I'd hypothesize the answer is (yes) to question 1). Case/point, the mere fact one comes to the defense, or to offer apologetics, to defend certain passages of the Bible, is one of the tell-tales. Doing so suggests what is plainly written in the Bible sometimes does not directly align with the moral compass of the one(s) coming to the Bible's defense. Therefore, 'explanations', or as I see it, excuses, is/are given to make it more comfortable for the one(s) choosing to continue holding this position.

I find it very confusing how "coming to the defense" of something implies cognitive dissonance. Doesn't it more likely mean that you believe in what is being said than that you're jumping through hoops to try and explain it?

Take your obvious example of slavery for instance. The bible calls us to servanthood. To serve all, most especially the lowest rungs of society who tend to be neglected and without care. As rightly labelled by atheist critics like Nietzsche, Christianity is a slave morality. It is for slaves (/the downtrodden) and teaches us to enslave ourselves. I believe this and (pace Nietzsche) that this is what we should do. So why would I speak out against the biblical laws condoning it? To do so would be the real cognitive dissonance.

Now chattel slavery, that is something different altogether. This is not an excuse but simple fact, and being clear on what slavery was in Ancient Israel.

Thank you for your attempt at muddying the waters. If your goal is to water down the term "slavery", in the sense that we must all become "slaves", then you can certainly rationalize it, sure.

I've explained, ad nauseam, as to what the Bible condones. Do you disagree with my assessment, up to this point? If so, please explain where I am wrong. Alternatively, if you agree with my assessment, up to this point, then do you agree with the Bible on all these accounts?

[Tcg]

Now chattel slavery, that is something different altogether. This is not an excuse but simple fact, and being clear on what slavery was in Ancient Israel.

Chattel slavery is exactly what it was:

Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

<bolding mine though it's not really needed>

Tcg