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.

[POI]

I do know for a fact that a great many Christians have read it and yet still hold the mistaken idea that Jesus was a prophet of love. He clearly wasn't.

Yes, and the cognitive dissonance presents as they will then be required to wiggle the term 'love'. This way, they can continue to remain on team-Christianity.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

The following quote is often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." This makes me wonder if Gandhi ever read the gospels, specifically this passage:

Matthew 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

This clearly clashes with Gandhi's practice of non-violent resistance.

I do know for a fact that a great many Christians have read it and yet still hold the mistaken idea that Jesus was a prophet of love. He clearly wasn't.


Tcg

That passage in Matthew also creates a contradiction (or at least makes no sense since none would survive) with:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

Romans later goes on to say that only through faith are we 'saved'. So what to do with law breakers who have faith? Lightly toasted next to the furnace?

Maybe the later canonization process, performed by the council of Nicea, should have done a little bit better job of determining which books and assertions to leave in, and which ones to leave out I guess this is, in part, why Chrisitan apologetics was formulated and is now also required to do some very heavy lifting?

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

In essence, to join a particular and specific team, whether it be to follow a particular religious team, or to follow a particular political team, or maybe even a sports team, you have to take the 'good' with the 'bad'. This topic was raised to demonstrate that the ones who have opted to join team-Christianity, must do the same. Case/point, being required to defend 'slavery', or as others have also pointed out, are maybe required to also defend textual contradiction. To join team-Christianity is to require some level of cognitive dissonance with both their own "morals", as well as cited contradiction.. Much like one may be required to do to fully join team-blue or team-red, without any exception to any/all views of each party.

If you disagree, please state your case. Thus far, my beginning case is as follows... The one's who embrace team-Christianity likely do not embrace chattel slavery and slave breeding. Thus, the requirement to spin these two topics to make them more 'palatable' to the team-Christianity subscriber. See the topic below, from where this topic was born (viewtopic.php?t=40608). If you look at both the OP, as well as the current last post (334), you will see where this argument currently stands.

Thank you

[theophile]

The laws you cite could be either / or. Either 1) a perversion of our more fundamental calling to be slaves, to legitimate self-serving versions of the concept, or 2) a practical response to a people that insisted on the practice and couldn't be made to do otherwise, to at least ensure it was regulated and some rights and protections were granted. In this latter case in particular, the laws and law-makers would be in perfect accord with the more fundamental calling to serve others, even the lowest rungs of society, by giving them rights and protections. And as such provide an exception to your rule.

1) The allotted 'perversion(s)' in which the Bible actually endorses are both specific instances of both chattel slavery and slave breeding. The other thread explains in detail.

2) The 'practical response' falls under the very same guidelines as the first, both chattel slavery and slave breeding.

More broadly, I would say that being Christian does not necessitate cognitive dissonance

Yes, it does. You have demonstrated, by merely providing classic Christian apologetics for the topic of "slavery".

See, this is where I get confused again. Maybe we understand cognitive dissonance (CD) differently? Merely providing apologetics or explanations is not CD. CD is holding contradictory beliefs and/or believing one thing but doing something entirely different.

I gave two explanations (all I could think of) for how these laws could have come about to show why CD is not necessary. The one explanation, that these laws could have been a self-serving perversion of more fundamental beliefs, is indefensible. I am not defending the laws or law-makers in that scenario. No apologetics whatsoever in that case, just explanation. So while there absolutely is CD in this scenario on part of the law-makers, there is none on my part. I can consistently hold to fundamental beliefs while condemning the laws as such as wrong.

In the second scenario, that these laws could have been a practical application and extension of a more fundamental belief, I do think a consistent argument can be made that the laws are defensible for the time they were given even if indefensible now. (They are a practical application and as such only conditionally apply). This is no different than, say, US legislations to improve the conditions of slaves prior to emancipation. Such legislations are defensible for the time they were given and would be 100% consistent with deeper beliefs to improve the welfare of others, even if indefensible now insofar as they ultimately condone the practice and the same conditions no longer apply.

So is that still CD in your view? Let me be very clear about the scenario I'm talking about:

1. You are a law-maker in Ancient Israel
2. Your people insist on continuing or allowing the practice of buying and selling slaves (think US Antebellum South)
3. Your fundamental belief is that you should care for and serve the welfare of others
4. As such, you create / support whatever legislations you can to establish rights and protections for such slaves

In that precise scenario (which I think is viable and has historic parallels), there is no contradiction in your beliefs that I can see. There is also no contradiction between your beliefs and actions since your actions are effecting laws that are consistent with your beliefs. There is also no contradiction for a Christian today who shares the same fundamental beliefs defending said laws while also recognizing them as no longer applying and condemning the practice of chattel slavery.

So where is the CD in this scenario? Or in the first scenario for a Christian who recognizes the perversion at play and condemns the laws as such?

[bjs1]

[Replying to POI in post #20]

There are plenty of threads about slavery. I can comment on them as I have the time and inclination.

In this thread you said that when a Christian “comes to the defense” of his beliefs, that is “cognitive dissonance.”

You then came do the defense of your beliefs and called being “logically consistent.”

Do you genuinely not see the problem here?

[POI]

CD is holding contradictory beliefs and/or believing one thing but doing something entirely different.

I agree, and you are presenting a 'CD'. I'll explain below. You can also read post 24 for more insight. Also see (post 1 and post 334) of the following thread - (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=330).

I gave two explanations (all I could think of) for how these laws could have come about to show why CD is not necessary. The one explanation, that these laws could have been a self-serving perversion of more fundamental beliefs, is indefensible. I am not defending the laws or law-makers in that scenario. No apologetics whatsoever in that case, just explanation. So while there absolutely is CD in this scenario on part of the law-makers, there is none on my part. I can consistently hold to fundamental beliefs while condemning the laws as such as wrong.

Please see point 6), of post 334, from the above cited thread.

In the second scenario, that these laws could have been a practical application and extension of a more fundamental belief, I do think a consistent argument can be made that the laws are defensible for the time they were given even if indefensible now. (They are a practical application and as such only conditionally apply). This is no different than, say, US legislations to improve the conditions of slaves prior to emancipation. Such legislations are defensible for the time they were given and would be 100% consistent with deeper beliefs to improve the welfare of others, even if indefensible now insofar as they ultimately condone the practice and the same conditions no longer apply.

From post 334 of the other thread, see points 3), 4), and 5).

So is that still CD in your view?

Yes.

Let me be very clear about the scenario I'm talking about:

1. You are a law-maker in Ancient Israel
2. Your people insist on continuing or allowing the practice of buying and selling slaves (think US Antebellum South)
3. Your fundamental belief is that you should care for and serve the welfare of others
4. As such, you create / support whatever legislations you can to establish rights and protections for such slaves

See points 2), 3), and 4) of the other thread, via post 334.

In that precise scenario (which I think is viable and has historic parallels), there is no contradiction in your beliefs that I can see. There is also no contradiction between your beliefs and actions since your actions are effecting laws that are consistent with your beliefs. There is also no contradiction for a Christian today who shares the same fundamental beliefs defending said laws while also recognizing them as no longer applying and condemning the practice of chattel slavery.

So where is the CD in this scenario? Or in the first scenario for a Christian who recognizes the perversion at play and condemns the laws as such?

Yes, there is 'CD'. See point 1) from post 334. And also see post 24 from this thread. It is YOU, who possesses the CD to remain on team-Christianity, Chattel slavery practices are not abolished by Jesus.

But nice try

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #20]

There are plenty of threads about slavery. I can comment on them as I have the time and inclination.

In this thread you said that when a Christian “comes to the defense” of his beliefs, that is “cognitive dissonance.”

You then came do the defense of your beliefs and called being “logically consistent.”

Do you genuinely not see the problem here?

LOL! If you wish to be hyperbolic, you can wiggle out of my point, sure. However, I think you know exactly what I mean. It's not the mere act/action of waging a 'defense'. I'm stating that to hold to the position of endorsements for both chattel slavery and slave breeding are logically inconsistent, while also observing your own moral compass. Also see post 24.

3rd request:

So bjs1, do you agree with all the endorsements in which the Bible condones, regarding the topic of chattel slavery? If so, then you do not need to argue here. 1) Just say <yes>, all endorsed chattel slavery practices, as laid out in the other aforementioned topic, are fine and dandy with bjs1. But, 2) if you should instead try to clarify/justify/other, then you will immediately represent your cognitive dissonance to retain your chosen position.

Your move buddy, 1) or 2)? 1) endorses chattel slavery and slave breeding, and you then actually have no cognitive dissonance in this particular instance and 2) instead admits a clear cognitive dissonance.

[armchairscholar]

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.

Your thought-provoking questions about cognitive dissonance and Christianity have stirred much reflection in me. Let me share my thoughts with you on this complex matter.

1. Is cognitive dissonance a necessary requirement to retain a position of team-Christianity?

I must say that cognitive dissonance is not necessarily a requirement for maintaining faith in Christianity it is often an inevitable part of the journey of faith for many believers.

2) If not, please explain why not?

While cognitive dissonance can occur for many Christians, it's not an absolute necessity for faith. Some individuals may find their beliefs align harmoniously with their experiences and moral intuitions, experiencing little dissonance. Faith can be deeply personal and varied, shaped by individual experiences, cultural contexts, and personal interpretations of scripture and tradition.

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

Although I don't believe cognitive dissonance is absolutely necessary, I acknowledge its presence in my own faith journey and that of many others. I choose to retain my Christian faith for several reasons:

My faith provides a framework for understanding the world and my place in it. It offers a sense of purpose and meaning that transcends the material world.

The teachings of Christ, particularly those of love, forgiveness, and social justice, resonate deeply with my personal values and aspirations for a better world.

The rich tradition and history of the despite its flaws and dark chapters, has been a source of inspiration, wisdom, and community for billions over millennia.

But I must admit that there are times when my faith challenges my reason, or when certain scriptural passages or Church teachings seem at odds with my moral intuitions or scientific understanding. In these moments, I experience cognitive dissonance.

But rather than seeing this dissonance as a weakness of faith, I view it as an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding. It pushes me to engage more deeply with scripture, to research historical contexts, to dialogue with others, and to wrestle with difficult questions. This process of questioning and seeking understanding is, I believe, an integral part of a mature faith.

I recognize that cognitive dissonance can be uncomfortable it can also be a catalyst for personal growth and the refinement of one's beliefs. I'm aware that the interpretation and application of religious texts have evolved over time, often in response to changing social and intellectual contexts.

While cognitive dissonance isn't a prerequisite for faith, it's often a part of the faith journey. My choice to remain Christian is not despite this dissonance in some ways because of it. It keeps my faith dynamic, encourages me to continually seek deeper understanding, and reminds me of the mysteries that lie beyond human comprehension.

I hope these reflections offer some insight into my perspective. As always, I value your thoughts and would be eager to hear your views on this matter.

[bjs1]

[Replying to POI in post #20]

There are plenty of threads about slavery. I can comment on them as I have the time and inclination.

In this thread you said that when a Christian “comes to the defense” of his beliefs, that is “cognitive dissonance.”

You then came do the defense of your beliefs and called being “logically consistent.”

Do you genuinely not see the problem here?

LOL! If you wish to be hyperbolic, you can wiggle out of my point, sure. However, I think you know exactly what I mean. It's not the mere act/action of waging a 'defense'. I'm stating that to hold to the position of endorsements for both chattel slavery and slave breeding are logically inconsistent, while also observing your own moral compass. Also see post 24.

3rd request:

So bjs1, do you agree with all the endorsements in which the Bible condones, regarding the topic of chattel slavery? If so, then you do not need to argue here. 1) Just say <yes>, all endorsed chattel slavery practices, as laid out in the other aforementioned topic, are fine and dandy with bjs1. But, 2) if you should instead try to clarify/justify/other, then you will immediately represent your cognitive dissonance to retain your chosen position.

Your move buddy, 1) or 2)? 1) endorses chattel slavery and slave breeding, and you then actually have no cognitive dissonance in this particular instance and 2) instead admits a clear cognitive dissonance.

You created a bait and switch. You asked one question, but switch to a different question.

I am not interested is such games. You may repeat your switched-in question as often as you like. I will not play. The question of this thread has been answered. If you wish to start another thread on slavery, feel free.