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.

[AquinasForGod]

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.

I already answered this. I showed why he is against it. You haven't shown the reasoning is incorrect. Instead, as if you didn't understand the point, you repeated yourself. I will give you a chance to actually respond, and if not, I will leave this as it is. I am confident that those who do understand the point will see why Jesus was against slavery.

[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.

I already answered this. I showed why he is against it.

Introducing a reply does not mean you answered. The Torah expressed the 'golden rule' while still condoning lifetime chattel slavery. Jesus would be aware that the condoning of owning humans as lifetime property was already established. Jesus offered voluntarily, what he does and does not like, via the Sermon on the Mount, etc etc etc. Not once does he denounce such practices, in spite of the fact later abolitionists thought it important enough to devote all their time to such a cause. I trust you would agree that chattel slavery trumps many other moral topics in which Jesus voluntarily opted to actually express his disdain for... Some of which would be also redundant to what you stated.

My prior answer stands firm, in that Jesus was either negligent or complicit. A simple statement about rebuking the owning of another human as property would settle it, being he was apparently fully aware of the prior allowance.

[AquinasForGod]

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.

I already answered this. I showed why he is against it.

Introducing a reply does not mean you answered. The Torah expressed the 'golden rule' while still condoning lifetime chattel slavery. Jesus would be aware that the condoning of owning humans as lifetime property was already established. Jesus offered voluntarily, what he does and does not like, via the Sermon on the Mount, etc etc etc. Not once does he denounce such practices, in spite of the fact later abolitionists thought it important enough to devote all their time to such a cause. I trust you would agree that chattel slavery trumps many other moral topics in which Jesus voluntarily opted to actually express his disdain for... Some of which would be also redundant to what you stated.

My prior answer stands firm, in that Jesus was either negligent or complicit. A simple statement about rebuking the owning of another human as property would settle it, being he was apparently fully aware of the prior allowance.

Okay.

[POI]

Okay.

Okay. So, was Jesus negligent or complicit?

[RugMatic]

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'm not aware of any ideology that lacks cognitive dissonance. None of us live in a vacuum, and apologetics are inevitable. Nor am I aware of any ideology that lacks the occasional inner tantrum.

At best our minds are a junkyard of random thoughts that want external stimulus.
At worst our minds are a junkyard of random thoughts that don't want external stimulus. Even comatose brains are said to create the illusion of external stimulus. So I doubt the latter is humanly possible.


1) Yes, the prerequisite of being a Christian is cognitive dissonance.
2) If it it lacked cognitive dissonance it would be a nonhuman experience, and then we're talking about something incomprehensible. If something's incomprehensible, well now, it would never be comprehended at all.
3) I suppose the sacred brawl has merit, are who'd bother defending their beliefs if it didn't?

[Tcg]

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.

I already answered this. I showed why he is against it.

Introducing a reply does not mean you answered. The Torah expressed the 'golden rule' while still condoning lifetime chattel slavery. Jesus would be aware that the condoning of owning humans as lifetime property was already established. Jesus offered voluntarily, what he does and does not like, via the Sermon on the Mount, etc etc etc. Not once does he denounce such practices, in spite of the fact later abolitionists thought it important enough to devote all their time to such a cause. I trust you would agree that chattel slavery trumps many other moral topics in which Jesus voluntarily opted to actually express his disdain for... Some of which would be also redundant to what you stated.

My prior answer stands firm, in that Jesus was either negligent or complicit. A simple statement about rebuking the owning of another human as property would settle it, being he was apparently fully aware of the prior allowance.

Okay.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the Thank button. For anything else use PM.

[BrotherBerry]

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.

No, you dot need a cognition dissonance to become a Christian. You believe in Jesus, John 6:47 most definitely I tell you, believe in me and you'll be saved. To learn more go to www.Gotquestions.org

[servant1]

[Replying to BrotherBerry in post #57]


Jesus assures that believing means more than just plain believing-Matt 7:21-23--these believe yet will hear those words as judgement. So don't be fooled by false dogmas.

believing= learning all he teaches, applying all he teaches, obeying all he teaches.

[BrotherBerry]

[Replying to BrotherBerry in post #57]


Jesus assures that believing means more than just plain believing-Matt 7:21-23--these believe yet will hear those words as judgement. So don't be fooled by false dogmas.

believing= learning all he teaches, applying all he teaches, obeying all he teaches.

We're saved by faith through grace, not by works lest people boast, Ephesians 2:8,9.

To learn more go to www.Gotquestions.org

[BrotherBerry]

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

Do you ever miss Jesus? 40 years is a long time to have believed in him.