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]

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.

Thank you!

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.

In post 24, I have drawn a direct parallel to joining a specific political team, (i.e.) team-red or team-blue. Neither side likely 100% follows one's own moral compass. The Christian must get on board, 100%, with any/all views in which the Bible endorses. Just like a 'republican' or a 'democrat' to claim to be a pure 'righty' or 'lefty'. This is why the term 'cafeteria Christian' was born. The ones on team-Christianity, pick and choose, while passing on the rest. The savvy ones, find a way to spin/rationalize the position(s) they do not themselves agree with morally. The same can go for politics. To accept Jesus as your Lord and savior is to also accept all of the Bible's pronouncements. Team-Christianity does not get the luxury to pick and choose, like one can in politics, however. For example, one may claim to be on the political right, but might agree with the women's right to choose. With Christianity however, it's basically all or nothing. This is why I have started to develop a running list of deflections/redirections/other, in this thread (viewtopic.php?t=40608), post 334. The one on team-Christianity may think of all sorts of reason(s) as to why a specific 'moral view' is this/that/other, rather than to admit they do not agree with the position.

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.

I sincerely doubt many/most/all morally agree with the aforementioned topic above Hence, requiring the need for 'Christian apologetics', as described in the other thread.

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.

Sure, but I would rather know what is true. And it's highly doubtful that such a God exists, unless they are the God of contradiction. My position is that I have no idea what happens after we die, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what the Bible states. Just like I'm pretty sure the Scientologists got it wrong, the Hindus got it wrong, the Muslims got it wrong, and many of the others for which I have looked into...

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 same can be said for other historical figures. As long as you ignore the slavery, genocide, infanticide, child abuse, rape, etc, yes, Jesus/God endorses many things you may like.

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.

Sure, but again, is it actually true?

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.

Yes, and at some point, it became a cross I could no longer bear, no pun intended.

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.

Yes, but you will find that in the aforementioned topic, has no logical rationale, as I see it...

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.

Sure, and yet I have found no Chrisitan yet, to rationalize the topic of 'chattel slavery', as mentioned in the aforementioned thread.

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.

When you opt to be on a team, you will sometimes be forced to 'rationalize' some topics, for which you yourself may not agree with, at your core. Also read up on the topic of (psychology of belief).

[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.

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.

I most certainly have not created a bait and switch. The topic of slavery is only the very first example as to why you present with a cognitive dissonance. The OP speaks about certain verses. The Bible speaks about slavery, which involves certain verses. And now you are finding an excuse to abort.

You could have also responded to post 24 of this thread,

FYI, the catalyst for the creation of this thread was after re-reading tam's responses in the slavery thread.

[theophile]

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

Sorry, but I don't think you've said anything new here. Or really responded or clarified anything with all your self-citations. I read all your stuff. Maybe it's just me.

Thanks,

[POI]

Maybe it's just me.

I think you are right here.

[Realworldjack]

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

So, allow me to get this straight. You are telling us, you were a Christian for 40 years, and after 40 years you discovered "nothing about it adds up"? "Not even close"? GOOD GRIEF! I would like to think I have been "blessed with a brain which likes to figure things out" but I cannot imagine being convinced of something for 40 years only to discover that I had been convinced for 40 years, and there would be no reason to be convinced. Now, I absolutely could imagine one who may say, "I was a convinced Christian for 40 years, because there are indeed reasons to be convinced, but after reconsideration I have come to a different conclusion". I mean, how can one be so convinced of something which last for 40 years, only to become just as convinced now in the opposite direction? Seriously! I would think that if I discovered that I had been so wrong in the past, (which I have) then I would at the very least acknowledge the possibility of error on my part now (which I do). What I cannot possibly understand would be, one who was so convinced of one thing for 40 years, now being just as convinced they are correct now that they have changed the mind?

The thing is, I am a convinced Christian, who does not insist there would be no reason to be opposed to the position I hold, because I understand the reasons for doubt, and I have no problem with those who doubt, and, or those who do not believe at all. The problem I have is with those who want to insist there would be no reason at all to hold to the position I have, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. This is especially the case involving those who want to insist they were convinced Christians at one time, who now want to convince us they were convinced when there would be no reason to be convinced, who then want to tell us that it was the use of the mind which cause them to arrive to this different conclusion. This is a tired and worn-out argument on both sides, which carries no weight at all. In other words, there are countless folks who claimed to have been unbelievers, and or atheists, who claim that it was the use of the mind which caused them to convert to Christianity, and these folks are just as convinced now they are correct, just as they were when they were a convinced unbeliever, and, or atheist.

In fact, I have read the book, "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert" which was authored by one who was at one time a lesbian, who was a tenured professor at Syracuse University, who was the head of the LBGTQ at this university. She converted to Christianity, and she credits her vast knowledge of language along with her reading of the Bible for her conversion. Now, I am certain, you do not consider her dramatic conversion to have anything at all to do with Christianity being true, or false, and nor do I. So then, why would you suppose that one who claimed to have been a convinced Christian for 40 years, who claims they had no reasons to be convinced, would have anything at all to do with Christianity being true, or false? In other words, how is it that we can have one who was so convinced one way, who goes on to admit they had no reason to be convinced in such a way, who now wants to convince us it was the use of the mind which changed the mind, and they go on to attempt to convince us, they are just as convinced now, as they were when they had no reason to be convinced? What would tell us the mind is now engaged?

Going back to the author of "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert" would you like to admit that it was the use of her mind which changed her mind? I would think that you would not like to think this to be the case. So then, would you say,

"Well, pardon me if I am not convinced her reasoning is any better now. In other words, simply because one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the mind is now engaged"? Or would you say this would be an example of one making a "personal comment" and you would never make such a comment?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

No, cognitive dissonance isn’t a requirement, and I’d argue it’s actually a misunderstanding of how faith works. Picture this: cognitive dissonance is like trying to hold two contradictory ideas at once. It’s like saying, “I believe in gravity, but I also believe I can float if I really try.” That’s just confusion, not conviction. Christianity, on the other hand, calls for faith and understanding to work together, not to clash against each other. The aim is harmony, not internal chaos.

Let me explain it like this: think of faith and reason as two players on the same team, passing the ball back and forth to get the big win, which is truth. Faith doesn’t demand you check your brain at the door—it actually invites you to bring it along for the ride. There may be things that are mysterious, yes, but mystery isn't the same as inconsistency or contradiction. It’s like a beautiful painting that you can keep exploring without feeling like something’s off or doesn’t fit.

And, when you do hit a snag, like a question or a doubt, it’s not something to avoid but something to engage with. Historically, Christians have leaned into those questions, which is why we’ve got volumes of theological thought. It’s not about mental gymnastics; it’s more like taking on a fun, challenging puzzle that leads to deeper understanding.

[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...

[SiNcE_1985]

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 choose to retain Christianity because the evidence of it's truth value is persuasive to me.

Plus, Jesus has the words of eternal life (in my opinion), so, where else shall I go? (John 6:68).

[POI]

I choose to retain Christianity because the evidence of it's truth value is persuasive to me.

1) What evidence specifically is persuasive to you?
2) Does this mean some cognitive dissonance still remains necessary - (to maybe rationalize some/other parts which still don't make sense logically)?

[SiNcE_1985]

1) What evidence specifically is persuasive to you?

This is a rabbit hole.

Make a thread about evidence(s) for Christianity.

2) Does this mean some cognitive dissonance still remains necessary - (to maybe rationalize some/other parts which still don't make sense logically)?

Everything makes enough sense (logically) to me.