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.

[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.

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?

Not sure where you explained "ad nauseam" as to what the Bible condones, but your response didn't really respond to anything. Again, where is the cognitive dissonance if biblical teaching is that we become slaves / servants, and we believe this to be right? Cognitive dissonance in this case would be believing this and not acting like a slave. Or believing this while calling out the act -- or the condoning of the act -- of entering into such service.

We can probably fruitlessly debate the details and exceptions of slavery in Ancient Israel for hours, but per Wikipedia:

"Broadly, the Biblical laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner."

Now, forcing people into or condoning chattel slavery while holding this view would count as cognitive dissonance, since enslaving others is generally not consistent with serving and caring for them. So if there are biblical characters or Ancient Israelites who did this while claiming to hold true to biblical teaching, then these would be prime examples of cognitive dissonance. And I am by no means denying that such ones exist. The fact that such ones exist does not change my argument or make me subject to cognitive dissonance. I am not defending them but would call them out as wrong as vigorously as you are.

Again, the only cognitive dissonance would be if I condoned or emulated their actions, which I do not. Their existence doesn't change anything or create any contradiction in the bible's core teaching on slavery or those who hold it. So back to the OP, there is no necessary requirement for cognitive dissonance that I can see, albeit many so-called Christians probably are in such a state. Even me. Since I believe we should act like slaves but I definitely don't follow through on that consistently.

[POI]

Not sure where you explained "ad nauseam" as to what the Bible condones

Oh, pardon me. I've been toggling threads. If you are not already aware of the 'slavery' thread, then my bad --> (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608)

where is the cognitive dissonance if biblical teaching is that we become slaves / servants, and we believe this to be right? Cognitive dissonance in this case would be believing this and not acting like a slave. Or believing this while calling out the act -- or the condoning of the act -- of entering into such service.

We can probably fruitlessly debate the details and exceptions of slavery in Ancient Israel for hours

No, we do not need to. You are clearly muddying the waters here. If you wish to reduce the term "slavery" to mean something to the effect of -- 'we all serve in one way or another', then I guess the term 'slavery' has no real meaning. When I say 'slavery', I mean the kind of (slavery) in which is completely frowned upon in most societies today.

Now, forcing people into or condoning chattel slavery while holding this view would count as cognitive dissonance, since enslaving others is generally not consistent with serving and caring for them.

Yes, and to hold to Christianity means you must reconcile this position, which requires cognitive dissonance,

So if there are biblical characters or Ancient Israelites who did this while claiming to hold true to biblical teaching, then these would be prime examples of cognitive dissonance. And I am by no means denying that such ones exist. The fact that such ones exist does not change my argument or make me subject to cognitive dissonance. I am not defending them but would call them out as wrong as vigorously as you are.

Well, if you are a "Christian", in any sense of the term, and you too do not condone the types of chattel slavery, as defined in the above expressed thread, then you possess cognitive dissonance. If you are not a 'Christian', then this topic may not apply to you.

[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 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.

But you come to the defense of atheism. By the standard you established in the first post, this appears to mean that remaining outside religious belief requires cognitive dissonance.

Beyond that, you bring up slavery. If an atheist opposes slavery as a moral issue – not just that slavery is culturally unacceptable or personally unappealing, but inherently wrong in a universal sense – then that would be another example of cognitive dissonance required to remain an atheist.

[POI]

But you come to the defense of atheism. By the standard you established in the first post, this appears to mean that remaining outside religious belief requires cognitive dissonance.

I lack a belief in a God or Gods. A matter of fact, I lack belief in pretty much any claim until evidence presents to the contrary. Thus, I'd say that in this context, I'm quite logically consistent. But when it comes to eating meat, politics, and maybe some other topics, I'm not as logically consistent.

Beyond that, you bring up slavery. If an atheist opposes slavery as a moral issue – not just that slavery is culturally unacceptable or personally unappealing, but inherently wrong in a universal sense – then that would be another example of cognitive dissonance required to remain an atheist.

The topic of slavery requires cognitive dissonance for the Christian. Rather than to go into this, I already have a running topic here --> (viewtopic.php?t=40608).. Please also note what I stated in the OP:

"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."

If you want atheists to argue that morals cannot be absolutely objective without a god, as a distractor, we can certainly go down this path too. However, my point in this thread is that Christians, who come to the defense of the Bible's assertions for slavery, is the compelling factor for practicing cognitive dissonance.

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. But, 2) if you should instead try to clarify/justify/other, then you will immediately represent your cognitive dissonance to retain the faith.

Your move buddy, 1) or 2)

[theophile]

where is the cognitive dissonance if biblical teaching is that we become slaves / servants, and we believe this to be right? Cognitive dissonance in this case would be believing this and not acting like a slave. Or believing this while calling out the act -- or the condoning of the act -- of entering into such service.

We can probably fruitlessly debate the details and exceptions of slavery in Ancient Israel for hours

No, we do not need to. You are clearly muddying the waters here. If you wish to reduce the term "slavery" to mean something to the effect of -- 'we all serve in one way or another', then I guess the term 'slavery' has no real meaning. When I say 'slavery', I mean the kind of (slavery) in which is completely frowned upon in most societies today.

There are different orders of belief and imperative at work in the bible. Most fundamentally, there is what we are called to as human beings, unadulterated by the world and our various motives. In this simplest form we are called to be slaves in the bible. To voluntary slavery. To be slaves to God, which means serving even the lowest rungs of society. Slavery to the extreme in a certain sense.

Then there are the beliefs and imperatives that are derivate from this, in which I would include the specific laws and regulations you cite in your other post. I say 'derivative' because such things are ultimately secondary, being either a perversion of a more fundamental form, twisted to our own selfish ends, or a practical application thereof, given in response to a twisted world and only applying to such.

The laws you cite could be either / or. Either a perversion of our more fundamental calling to be slaves, to legitimate self-serving versions of the concept, or 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.

More broadly, I would say that being Christian does not necessitate cognitive dissonance because being Christian does not mean being beholden to secondary and derivative beliefs and imperatives. Rather it means staying true to our most fundamental calling, pure and simple. Which includes calling out practical responses like the law you cite as no longer applying.

[POI]

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".

[Tcg]

[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

[benchwarmer]

[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?

[bjs1]

But you come to the defense of atheism. By the standard you established in the first post, this appears to mean that remaining outside religious belief requires cognitive dissonance.

I lack a belief in a God or Gods. A matter of fact, I lack belief in pretty much any claim until evidence presents to the contrary. Thus, I'd say that in this context, I'm quite logically consistent. But when it comes to eating meat, politics, and maybe some other topics, I'm not as logically consistent.

Now you are describing what your position is. This is the textbook example of an “apologetic.” According to post 1 of this thread, that is the mark of cognitive dissonance.

This thread is built on the fallacy of special pleading. It is saying, “When other people do it, then they are employing cognitive dissonance. When I do it, then I am being logically consistent.”

[POI]

But you come to the defense of atheism. By the standard you established in the first post, this appears to mean that remaining outside religious belief requires cognitive dissonance.

I lack a belief in a God or Gods. A matter of fact, I lack belief in pretty much any claim until evidence presents to the contrary. Thus, I'd say that in this context, I'm quite logically consistent. But when it comes to eating meat, politics, and maybe some other topics, I'm not as logically consistent.

Now you are describing what your position is. This is the textbook example of an “apologetic.” According to post 1 of this thread, that is the mark of cognitive dissonance.

This thread is built on the fallacy of special pleading. It is saying, “When other people do it, then they are employing cognitive dissonance. When I do it, then I am being logically consistent.”

I find your response here curious. Post 1 points out that Christians must defend at least one stated moral idea, in which they themselves disagree. Thus far, the moral idea brought forth is 'slavery'. You are defending the types of slavery in which I'm pretty sure you would not condone yourself. Hence, the 'defense' in which you have placed forth in this exchange. Which is basically a red herring argument. Meaning, us atheists cannot make moral' judgments without a belief in a god. Well, even IF this were true, I'm pointing out that your own moral compass does not align with the belief system you adhere to. Thus, to retain a specific side or position, rationalization is required to ignore some glaring 'personal offenses'. Much like I do with eating meat, or always defending aspects of any given political candidate.

To put it another way. if I decide to become team-blue or team-red, in the political world, I will need to accept some cognitive dissonancel as my personal views would likely not align 100% on either side. If I remain on no team, then I basically absolve myself. Allowing myself to pick and chose, and maybe remain independent. Since you have decided to join team-Christianity, you now must deal with some peccadillos, or worse. And one of these peccadillos, or worse, would be 'slavery'.

Where the topic of religion is concerned, I'm consistent because I do not adopt any of them. I reject them all. Where-as you have made special concessions for one in particular, Christianity. And since the God of the Bible is pro-slavery, via chattel slavery and slave breeding, you display a cognitive dissonance in retaining your position of team-Christianity. Sorry, deal with it.

2nd 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 2) admits a clear cognitive dissonance.