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]

1) What evidence specifically is persuasive to you?

This is a rabbit hole.

Make a thread about evidence(s) for Christianity.

Please stop with your malformed "rubberstamps". A rabbit hole would be "used to refer to a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself." I'm simply asking an important follow-up question, based upon your (so-far) blank assertion that there actually exists evidence(s) for Christianity. What is/are these evidence(s)? Maybe there is actually enough <evidence(s)> to no longer need any further cognitive dissonance? But thus far, I doubt it....?

To re-iterate, from post 24, allow me to explain. To adopt the position of Christianity would be just as relevant as adopting a hardline position in politics. Meaning, to identify as a pure current 'Democrat' or pure 'Republican". But in reality, most of us live somewhere in the middle. You do not get such a luxury in religious belief(s). You do not get to debate areas for which you do not agree with.... If the book asserts it, you must instead invoke cognitive dissonance, rather than to reject some of it for which does not make sense or does not agree with your personal moral compass...

Everything makes enough sense (logically) to me.

We shall see....?

[AquinasForGod]

No, cognitive dissonance isn’t a requirement.

Yes, it is... Allow me to explain.

I raised this topic, after receiving some interesting responses from my created 'Slavery in the Bible' topic. Adopting Christianity means you must embrace/accept the whole kitten kaboodle. It's not like politics, where you can claim to be a moderate republican or democrat, picking and choosing to taste. You must take it all. Since we know the Bible can be used to endorse both chattel slavery and slave breeding, the Christian is then required to do their very best at "spin". And I have created some of its greatest hits, in post 334 of this thread (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=330).

I admit I harbor cognitive dissonance in politics and meat eating. But I no longer have any for Christianity, as I have now opted to reject the premise, due to it not jiving with both my own logic and morals. This does not necessary mean that my logic and morals are sound, it instead means that I have to reject it because it no longer aligns with my logic/morals. And to continue on team-Christianity would be inconsistent for me.

I look forward to your response...

That isn't how we see it at all. Jews also do not believe they ever supported the kind of slavery you are talking about. But all forms of slavery Christ was against, which we learn from his teachings on loving your neighbors as yourself, and even love your enemies, etc. Instead of outright condemning slavery, Jesus taught us core ideas that show us slavery and other ways of life are wrong. Christ chose to give us the proper teachings of how to live with each other, so they we would slowly move away from slavery, which we did.

[POI]

No, cognitive dissonance isn’t a requirement.

Yes, it is... Allow me to explain.

I raised this topic, after receiving some interesting responses from my created 'Slavery in the Bible' topic. Adopting Christianity means you must embrace/accept the whole kitten kaboodle. It's not like politics, where you can claim to be a moderate republican or democrat, picking and choosing to taste. You must take it all. Since we know the Bible can be used to endorse both chattel slavery and slave breeding, the Christian is then required to do their very best at "spin". And I have created some of its greatest hits, in post 334 of this thread (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=330).

I admit I harbor cognitive dissonance in politics and meat eating. But I no longer have any for Christianity, as I have now opted to reject the premise, due to it not jiving with both my own logic and morals. This does not necessary mean that my logic and morals are sound, it instead means that I have to reject it because it no longer aligns with my logic/morals. And to continue on team-Christianity would be inconsistent for me.

I look forward to your response...

That isn't how we see it at all. Jews also do not believe they ever supported the kind of slavery you are talking about. But all forms of slavery Christ was against, which we learn from his teachings on loving your neighbors as yourself, and even love your enemies, etc. Instead of outright condemning slavery, Jesus taught us core ideas that show us slavery and other ways of life are wrong. Christ chose to give us the proper teachings of how to live with each other, so they we would slowly move away from slavery, which we did.

Incorrect. Cognitive dissonance, by the believer, is required.

Jesus had no problem telling folks what he did not like. Jesus would know 'slavery' was and still is a very large topic. And yet, Jesus did not express abolition for such activities. Jesus pretty much remained silent. If all that mattered was the "golden rule", then the Bible would be a very short book. However, many caveats exist. Further, if the Bible never mentioned slavery, and also how exactly to perform it, you might have some kind of a point. But you do not. Hence, Jesus is either:

a) negligent - (in his silence to denounce all slavery practices - as expressed in the "OT")
b) complicit - (in that he agrees with the rules issued in the "OT" forever)

[AquinasForGod]

No, cognitive dissonance isn’t a requirement.

Yes, it is... Allow me to explain.

I raised this topic, after receiving some interesting responses from my created 'Slavery in the Bible' topic. Adopting Christianity means you must embrace/accept the whole kitten kaboodle. It's not like politics, where you can claim to be a moderate republican or democrat, picking and choosing to taste. You must take it all. Since we know the Bible can be used to endorse both chattel slavery and slave breeding, the Christian is then required to do their very best at "spin". And I have created some of its greatest hits, in post 334 of this thread (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=330).

I admit I harbor cognitive dissonance in politics and meat eating. But I no longer have any for Christianity, as I have now opted to reject the premise, due to it not jiving with both my own logic and morals. This does not necessary mean that my logic and morals are sound, it instead means that I have to reject it because it no longer aligns with my logic/morals. And to continue on team-Christianity would be inconsistent for me.

I look forward to your response...

That isn't how we see it at all. Jews also do not believe they ever supported the kind of slavery you are talking about. But all forms of slavery Christ was against, which we learn from his teachings on loving your neighbors as yourself, and even love your enemies, etc. Instead of outright condemning slavery, Jesus taught us core ideas that show us slavery and other ways of life are wrong. Christ chose to give us the proper teachings of how to live with each other, so they we would slowly move away from slavery, which we did.

Incorrect. Cognitive dissonance, by the believer, is required.

Jesus had no problem telling folks what he did not like. Jesus would know 'slavery' was and still is a very large topic. And yet, Jesus did not express abolition for such activities. Jesus pretty much remained silent. If all that mattered was the "golden rule", then the Bible would be a very short book. However, many caveats exist. Further, if the Bible never mentioned slavery, and also how exactly to perform it, you might have some kind of a point. But you do not. Hence, Jesus is either:

a) negligent - (in his silence to denounce all slavery practices - as expressed in the "OT")
b) complicit - (in that he agrees with the rules issued in the "OT" forever)

Jesus understood that society doesn’t change overnight, so He gave us timeless truths—such as loving our enemies—that stand against slavery and injustice. Through these teachings, humanity gradually transformed, and over time, we did change.

[POI]

No, cognitive dissonance isn’t a requirement.

Yes, it is... Allow me to explain.

I raised this topic, after receiving some interesting responses from my created 'Slavery in the Bible' topic. Adopting Christianity means you must embrace/accept the whole kitten kaboodle. It's not like politics, where you can claim to be a moderate republican or democrat, picking and choosing to taste. You must take it all. Since we know the Bible can be used to endorse both chattel slavery and slave breeding, the Christian is then required to do their very best at "spin". And I have created some of its greatest hits, in post 334 of this thread (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=330).

I admit I harbor cognitive dissonance in politics and meat eating. But I no longer have any for Christianity, as I have now opted to reject the premise, due to it not jiving with both my own logic and morals. This does not necessary mean that my logic and morals are sound, it instead means that I have to reject it because it no longer aligns with my logic/morals. And to continue on team-Christianity would be inconsistent for me.

I look forward to your response...

That isn't how we see it at all. Jews also do not believe they ever supported the kind of slavery you are talking about. But all forms of slavery Christ was against, which we learn from his teachings on loving your neighbors as yourself, and even love your enemies, etc. Instead of outright condemning slavery, Jesus taught us core ideas that show us slavery and other ways of life are wrong. Christ chose to give us the proper teachings of how to live with each other, so they we would slowly move away from slavery, which we did.

Incorrect. Cognitive dissonance, by the believer, is required.

Jesus had no problem telling folks what he did not like. Jesus would know 'slavery' was and still is a very large topic. And yet, Jesus did not express abolition for such activities. Jesus pretty much remained silent. If all that mattered was the "golden rule", then the Bible would be a very short book. However, many caveats exist. Further, if the Bible never mentioned slavery, and also how exactly to perform it, you might have some kind of a point. But you do not. Hence, Jesus is either:

a) negligent - (in his silence to denounce all slavery practices - as expressed in the "OT")
b) complicit - (in that he agrees with the rules issued in the "OT" forever)

Jesus understood that society doesn’t change overnight, so He gave us timeless truths—such as loving our enemies—that stand against slavery and injustice. Through these teachings, humanity gradually transformed, and over time, we did change.

This explanation fails miserably. The Bible states humans will always fall short. Jesus was either 1) negligent or 2) complicit, in regard to the topic of slavery. Take your pick, as there exists no third viable option here.

[William]

As some person once said...if the Bible said 2+2=5 then regardless of any external truth, they would accept the Bible's word over truth.

Perhaps Jesus having no say on slavery is testament that his words should not be in the Bible. Or perhaps his words do strongly suggest that the old ways have to be abandoned re shifts in thinking while also giving the impression that such tasks were not expected to be accomplished overnight ... at least not throughout general society.

[POI]

As some person once said...if the Bible said 2+2=5 then regardless of any external truth, they would accept the Bible's word over truth.

Perhaps Jesus having no say on slavery is testament that his words should not be in the Bible. Or perhaps his words do strongly suggest that the old ways have to be abandoned re shifts in thinking while also giving the impression that such tasks were not expected to be accomplished overnight ... at least not throughout general society.

I agree with much of what you state but have an additional comment to add. Jesus had no problem telling folks what was on his mind. (i.e.) The Sermon on the Mount, etc... Seems odd Jesus would leave slavery out, being this would be one of the most hotly rejected activities by humans later, don't you think?

[William]

Hard to say. There are many ways people can own people and what may be hotly denied is that this is the case even in the free world and that it ain't slavery if folk chose to be owned.

Also, do we need it spelt out? What - if anything-can we identify from the sermon mentioned might give indication as to where Jesus stood on the subject?

[AquinasForGod]

No, cognitive dissonance isn’t a requirement.

Yes, it is... Allow me to explain.

I raised this topic, after receiving some interesting responses from my created 'Slavery in the Bible' topic. Adopting Christianity means you must embrace/accept the whole kitten kaboodle. It's not like politics, where you can claim to be a moderate republican or democrat, picking and choosing to taste. You must take it all. Since we know the Bible can be used to endorse both chattel slavery and slave breeding, the Christian is then required to do their very best at "spin". And I have created some of its greatest hits, in post 334 of this thread (viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=330).

I admit I harbor cognitive dissonance in politics and meat eating. But I no longer have any for Christianity, as I have now opted to reject the premise, due to it not jiving with both my own logic and morals. This does not necessary mean that my logic and morals are sound, it instead means that I have to reject it because it no longer aligns with my logic/morals. And to continue on team-Christianity would be inconsistent for me.

I look forward to your response...

That isn't how we see it at all. Jews also do not believe they ever supported the kind of slavery you are talking about. But all forms of slavery Christ was against, which we learn from his teachings on loving your neighbors as yourself, and even love your enemies, etc. Instead of outright condemning slavery, Jesus taught us core ideas that show us slavery and other ways of life are wrong. Christ chose to give us the proper teachings of how to live with each other, so they we would slowly move away from slavery, which we did.

Incorrect. Cognitive dissonance, by the believer, is required.

Jesus had no problem telling folks what he did not like. Jesus would know 'slavery' was and still is a very large topic. And yet, Jesus did not express abolition for such activities. Jesus pretty much remained silent. If all that mattered was the "golden rule", then the Bible would be a very short book. However, many caveats exist. Further, if the Bible never mentioned slavery, and also how exactly to perform it, you might have some kind of a point. But you do not. Hence, Jesus is either:

a) negligent - (in his silence to denounce all slavery practices - as expressed in the "OT")
b) complicit - (in that he agrees with the rules issued in the "OT" forever)

Jesus understood that society doesn’t change overnight, so He gave us timeless truths—such as loving our enemies—that stand against slavery and injustice. Through these teachings, humanity gradually transformed, and over time, we did change.

This explanation fails miserably. The Bible states humans will always fall short. Jesus was either 1) negligent or 2) complicit, in regard to the topic of slavery. Take your pick, as there exists no third viable option here.

Oh we are just making emotional claims now. Okay, you fail miserably. Humans always falling short doesn't equate to us not growing and learning and changing. Then you give a false dichotomy which is apartment to everyone that reads my original statement.

[POI]

Oh we are just making emotional claims now. Okay, you fail miserably. Humans always falling short doesn't equate to us not growing and learning and changing. Then you give a false dichotomy which is apartment to everyone that reads my original statement.

Jesus was either 1) negligent or 2) complicit, in regard to the topic of slavery. Why?

-- Jesus would be aware that the OT condones such practices.
-- Jesus has no problem telling folks what he does and does not like.
-- Jesus would also be aware that slavery is a huge topic among humans.
-- Jesus expresses his disdain for many things, but slavery is not one of them.

Of the two options, take your pick. There exists no third logical option to address.