Christian Faith & Cognitive Dissonance

[unknown soldier]

Consider Anne. Anne has been a Christian for a long time, and she's very sure that she has the one true God. She's also confident that her ability to share her faith should convince any person who is honestly seeking to know of God. She believes that Jesus literally speaks to her, and she often tells people what he has told her. If she encounters a person who rejects her testimony, she sees that person as a hard-hearted unbeliever who will not accept her truth because he is a sinner in rebellion against God.

One day Anne encounters Jack. Jack is almost a mirror image of Anne. Like Anne, Jack has been a person of faith a very long time. He's sure that God is true, and he testifies that God speaks to him too. He shares these revelations with others including Anne.

A problem quickly becomes apparent to Anne. Jack's God is much different in some ways than Christ. Jack's God is not even a God but a Goddess. Anne tries to convince Jack that she is right, but everything she says and does is met with a response from Jack that is basically the same as what she says and does but with his God.

Anne is thinking these two thoughts:

1. What I say and do demonstrates that my God should be accepted as the true God.
2. Jack is saying and doing about his Goddess what I say and do, yet I think his Goddess is false.

These two thoughts are in conflict. Anne realizes that if what she says and does demonstrates a true God, then what she says and does cannot demonstrate false God too. These conflicting thoughts cause Anne discomfort. She is experiencing what is known as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance happens when a person has two conflicting thoughts, both of which are apparently true.

How do Christians typically deal with cognitive dissonance? In Anne's case she may simply stop talking to Jack about God.

Other situations that may cause Christians to experience cognitive dissonance:

1. A tragedy strikes demonstrating that there is no protection from God.
2. A prayer fails to solve a very dire problem.
3. Bible study reveals a contradiction, an absurdity, or an evil act that is sanctified.
4. A clever atheist is encountered who is adept at falsifying Christian beliefs.

[bjs1]

Were you sincere?

Yes. I was sincere enough to pray as the Bible suggests in James 4:8. It didn't happen like the Bible claims. It is then a false claim because I just falsified it.

The cognitive dissonance this claim requires of me is beyond what I can bear. I will leave this debate for others to continue. Go well.

[brunumb]

The cognitive dissonance this claim requires of me is beyond what I can bear. I will leave this debate for others to continue.

That seems to be the most common way of dealing with it in my experience. They just seem to run away.

I rest my case.

[bjs1]

The cognitive dissonance this claim requires of me is beyond what I can bear. I will leave this debate for others to continue.

That seems to be the most common way of dealing with it in my experience. They just seem to run away.

I rest my case.

You are obviously free to pretend that this is what is happening here. However, I have to ask: Given this full conversation, do even you genuinely believe that your accusation is accurate?

[unknown soldier]

I see you have found two passages that apparently contradict Matthew 10:34.

Not at all. There only "appears" to be a conflict due to a lack of understanding. See below:

If I don't understand the Bible, then it isn't a result of a lack of effort on my part because I've read it. Your Bible then must be confusing or difficult to understand if I've read it and don't understand it.

You resolve this conflict the following way: just look for passages that say what you want Christ to say. Such conflict resolution is very common among Christians.

I did no such thing, because there is no conflict.

I think you did exactly that. If I'm not understanding Matthew 10:34, then explain what it really means rather than jumping off to other passages that say something different.

You don't seem to have seen (or understood) the entire verse of Matt 10:34.

Christ said that He did not come to bring peace to the world.

I've read the whole darned Bible. I understand that Matthew 10:34 says "to the world." It makes no difference to the fact that Christ is quoted as saying he had not come to bring peace.

But He does give us (His sheep) His peace, so that even though we will have trouble in the world, we have our peace in (and from) HIM.

Christians are part of the world, so you're making a false distinction here. Also, we know empirically that Christians have no more peace than anybody else.

So I see that you must deal with these two conflicting statements:

1. I believe Christ has come to bring peace.
2. He said in Matthew 10:34 that he has not come to bring peace.

To resolve cognitive dissonance, you look for other passages that say or seem to say what you believe, and then you find a part of Matthew 10:34 that you insist for no good reason does not include Christians.

In what ways do you differ from Anne?

I don't think "I" can convert a person; I don't think people who are non-believers (not the same thing as an unbeliever) are actively rejecting Christ (they might be, they might not be, that is not for me to say or to judge); I also do not think that non-believers are evil or any of the other things you originally claimed that "anne" believed.

Well, it's laudable that you think that Christ is not necessary to live a good, moral life.

Anyway, I should point out that Anne is recognizing a conflict where you say there is no conflict. Anne understands that if her evidence proves Christ, then the same evidence proves Jack's Goddess, a deity she does not believe in. Anne is special pleading by accepting the same evidence for Christ that she rejects for Jack's Goddess.

Do you not understand what special pleading is?

What point is that? What you said appears contradictory in that you say only the Son reveals God only to follow it up with your saying that you can "testify and plant a seed."

Yeah, well, those aren't the same things, right?

Both activities are attempts to convert people. Calling evangelizing "planting a seed" does not make it not evangelizing.

Anne might well react that way. If she's like many Christians, though, then she'll look hard for a way to save her faith. In so doing, she may experience confirmation bias seeking reasons to believe while ignoring or explaining away evidence to the contrary.

People of all sorts do what you are describing, including atheists.

That's a red herring fallacy. No matter how many people act like Anne (and many other Christians), such does not justify her irrational approach to truth.

I did a great job of driving home my point about different Gods and Goddesses having the same evidence for their existence, did I not?

No you didn't.

Yes I did! LOL

If that's what you think, then you concede that your God may well be made up too.

No, that's ridiculous.

No it isn't ridiculous! Your God could easily be made up. You see the possibility of error in others but fail to see that possibility in yourself.

I would know if I was making something up, and so I know that I am not doing such a thing.

You might know it, but I do not know if you are or are not making up your Christ.

Just because you made up a 'goddess' it does not stand to reason that I (or anyone else) did the same thing as you.

You could have made up Christ as easily as I could have made up Clarymda.

Well, for one, I didn't 'make Him up'.

Sure you did.

When you are engaging in (even initiating) a discussion about Christ and/or God, then what else do you expect other than a... discussion about Christ?

A discussion is all I can realistically expect about Christ because that's all there is to him--a lot of talk.

Seems to me is that you invented "clarymda" so that you could deflect the discussion about Christ and God, when that discussion no longer seemed to be going your way.

I was matching your words with my own words demonstrating that your words prove nothing especially seeing that you saw those words as not proving anything when I use your words.

Lol, come on now.

It looks like you're running out of arguments.

We are permitted to suffer in this world (in fact Christ said that in this world we WILL have trouble). We are protected from all suffering (no more tears, or mourning, pain, etc) - which would include any event that causes suffering (illness, death, harm - to us and our household) in the Kingdom, after Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom upon the earth.

That's illogical because if Christ was all good and all-powerful, then he wouldn't wait allowing people to suffer. Clarymda, on the other hand, does not solve our problems because she can't solve them.

So at least my talk is logical!

[unknown soldier]

Were you sincere?

Yes. I was sincere enough to pray as the Bible suggests in James 4:8. It didn't happen like the Bible claims. It is then a false claim because I just falsified it.

The cognitive dissonance this claim requires of me is beyond what I can bear. I will leave this debate for others to continue. Go well.

I take what you are saying here as a concession that you are unable to make your case.

You are obviously free to pretend that this is what is happening here. However, I have to ask: Given this full conversation, do even you genuinely believe that your accusation is accurate?

brunumb looks right to me. Didn't you just flee the debate?

[tam]

Peace to you,

I see you have found two passages that apparently contradict Matthew 10:34.

Not at all. There only "appears" to be a conflict due to a lack of understanding. See below:

If I don't understand the Bible, then it isn't a result of a lack of effort on my part because I've read it. Your Bible then must be confusing or difficult to understand if I've read it and don't understand it.

Who taught you that merely reading the bible is enough to understand everything written in it? Whoever taught you that taught you incorrectly.

If merely reading a book was always enough to understand it, why would so many people come to different conclusions? Why would anyone need a teacher to help explain the content and concepts?

Do you not recall that Christ opened the eyes of the apostles so that they could see and understand what was written about Him? Christ (not man, not religion, not one's own reasoning) is the KEY to opening the scriptures. He is the Teacher.

You resolve this conflict the following way: just look for passages that say what you want Christ to say. Such conflict resolution is very common among Christians.

I did no such thing, because there is no conflict.

I think you did exactly that. If I'm not understanding Matthew 10:34, then explain what it really means rather than jumping off to other passages that say something different.

I did. I used other passages to help you see that there is a difference between the world and Christ's sheep.

You don't seem to have seen (or understood) the entire verse of Matt 10:34.

Christ said that He did not come to bring peace to the world.

I've read the whole darned Bible. I understand that Matthew 10:34 says "to the world." It makes no difference to the fact that Christ is quoted as saying he had not come to bring peace.

It most certainly make a difference. Just because one is not bringing something to the world, doesn't mean that one cannot bring something to some people.

But He does give us (His sheep) His peace, so that even though we will have trouble in the world, we have our peace in (and from) HIM.

Christians are part of the world, so you're making a false distinction here. Also, we know empirically that Christians have no more peace than anybody else.

You say things like this, and it demonstrates how much you missed despite having read the 'whole darned Bible'.

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you OUT OF the world. That is why the world hates you. John 15:9

I have given them Your word and the world has hated them; for they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. John 17:4

There is no conflict in what Christ said.

So I see that you must deal with these two conflicting statements:

1. I believe Christ has come to bring peace.
2. He said in Matthew 10:34 that he has not come to bring peace.

To resolve cognitive dissonance, you look for other passages that say or seem to say what you believe, and then you find a part of Matthew 10:34 that you insist for no good reason does not include Christians.

See above.

The conflict here is yours. The cognitive dissonance here is yours. Now that you have been presented with further evidence of what Christ said, which shows there is no conflict in His words, shouldn't you reevaluate?

In what ways do you differ from Anne?

I don't think "I" can convert a person; I don't think people who are non-believers (not the same thing as an unbeliever) are actively rejecting Christ (they might be, they might not be, that is not for me to say or to judge); I also do not think that non-believers are evil or any of the other things you originally claimed that "anne" believed.

Well, it's laudable that you think that Christ is not necessary to live a good, moral life.

Did you know that this is also supported by what is written? There are indeed people of the nations who do - NATURALLY- the requirements of the law, showing that those requirements are written naturally upon their heart.

Indeed, when those of the nations who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them Romans 2:14-15


More than just Christians receive eternal life and enter into the Kingdom. (the sheep, from the sheep and the goats parable, are non-Christians) I learned this from my Lord, Jaheshua, the Chosen One of JAH.

Anyway, I should point out that Anne is recognizing a conflict where you say there is no conflict. Anne understands that if her evidence proves Christ, then the same evidence proves Jack's Goddess, a deity she does not believe in. Anne is special pleading by accepting the same evidence for Christ that she rejects for Jack's Goddess.

Well, Anne is a figment of your imagination, so Anne is seeing what you see, and reacting however you claim she is reacting. What is your point?

Do you not understand what special pleading is?

I do.

What point is that? What you said appears contradictory in that you say only the Son reveals God only to follow it up with your saying that you can "testify and plant a seed."

Yeah, well, those aren't the same things, right?

Both activities are attempts to convert people. Calling evangelizing "planting a seed" does not make it not evangelizing.

I explained the difference between planting a seed and getting that seed to grow, in the previous post.

Anne might well react that way. If she's like many Christians, though, then she'll look hard for a way to save her faith. In so doing, she may experience confirmation bias seeking reasons to believe while ignoring or explaining away evidence to the contrary.

People of all sorts do what you are describing, including atheists.

That's a red herring fallacy. No matter how many people act like Anne (and many other Christians), such does not justify her irrational approach to truth.

Red herring of what? There was no point to try and distract from. Anne might react as you suggest she would react (her being a figment of your imagination) or Anne might react as I suggested: in the same way that you claim you would react (logically).

I did a great job of driving home my point about different Gods and Goddesses having the same evidence for their existence, did I not?

No you didn't.

Yes I did! LOL

No, you didn't. Because again, the discussion was not about evidence for their existence.

Just because you made up a 'goddess' it does not stand to reason that I (or anyone else) did the same thing as you.

You could have made up Christ as easily as I could have made up Clarymda.

Christ existed long before I was born, so no, I could not have.

Lol, come on now.

It looks like you're running out of arguments.

No, I am just not getting caught up in something absurd.

We are permitted to suffer in this world (in fact Christ said that in this world we WILL have trouble). We are protected from all suffering (no more tears, or mourning, pain, etc) - which would include any event that causes suffering (illness, death, harm - to us and our household) in the Kingdom, after Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom upon the earth.

That's illogical because if Christ was all good and all-powerful, then he wouldn't wait allowing people to suffer.

Well, thank you for your opinion, but it isn't anything more than an opinion.

Acting too soon can cause more suffering than waiting until the time is right.

If you know that acting too soon will result in irreparable harm to your own people, then you wait.

And Christ is not the One who decides the timing; God decides that. God is the One who knows when the time is right. The timing is planned "just so."



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[brunumb]

If merely reading a book was always enough to understand it, why would so many people come to different conclusions? Why would anyone need a teacher to help explain the content and concepts?

The book is the source, therefore why are there so many teachers who have read the same book and reached different conclusions?

[unknown soldier]

Who taught you that merely reading the bible is enough to understand everything written in it? Whoever taught you that taught you incorrectly.

I was taught how to study in college. So like most books, I read the Bible and come to my own conclusions. If I feel I need help understanding it, then I may seek that help from somebody I think is qualified.

If merely reading a book was always enough to understand it, why would so many people come to different conclusions? Why would anyone need a teacher to help explain the content and concepts?

In the case of the Bible, people come to different conclusions about it because it is very ambiguous. If they seek help, they may seek a "teacher" who will tell them what they want to believe.

Do you not recall that Christ opened the eyes of the apostles so that they could see and understand what was written about Him?

Uh--I recall reading about the apostles being very confused over what Christ was saying to them. In the gospel story, the apostles are portrayed as being stupid. If they are presented that way anybody including Christ will look very clever by comparison.

Christ (not man, not religion, not one's own reasoning) is the KEY to opening the scriptures. He is the Teacher.

You're making that up. The truth is that Clarymda is the true fount of wisdom.

I used other passages to help you see that there is a difference between the world and Christ's sheep.

You ended up helping me see yet another contradiction in the Bible.

It most certainly make a difference.

Nope. Christ is quoted as saying he has not come to bring peace to anybody, and that includes "sheep."

There is no conflict in what Christ said.

The many conflicts in what Christ says in the gospel story have confused millions of people often setting them at odds with each other. The result has been twenty centuries of discord and often violence.

Now that you have been presented with further evidence of what Christ said, which shows there is no conflict in His words, shouldn't you reevaluate?

I'm not sure if I can figure out the contradictory passages we discovered. I'm guessing that the gospel writers wanted to speak of peace to recruit converts, and then they created a Christ who brought "a sword" to fend off those who might try to convince those converts that they made a mistake.

Did you know that this is also supported by what is written? There are indeed people of the nations who do - NATURALLY- the requirements of the law, showing that those requirements are written naturally upon their heart.

Indeed, when those of the nations who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them Romans 2:14-15

Hmmm. Paul was evidently trying to have Christ take credit for the good that unbelievers do. But there is no "law written on their hearts." People just know by instinct that we cannot be hurting others all the time or our species will go extinct. It is our evolution and not some made up God that has made us good.

And by the way, Paul is contradicting Psalm 14 which libels atheists as being fools who do no good.

More than just Christians receive eternal life and enter into the Kingdom. (the sheep, from the sheep and the goats parable, are non-Christians) I learned this from my Lord, Jaheshua, the Chosen One of JAH.

Nah, you're making that up.

Anne is special pleading by accepting the same evidence for Christ that she rejects for Jack's Goddess.

Well, Anne is a figment of your imagination, so Anne is seeing what you see, and reacting however you claim she is reacting. What is your point?

Anne is special pleading by accepting the same evidence for Christ that she rejects for Jack's Goddess. You are special pleading in the very same way.

That's a red herring fallacy. No matter how many people act like Anne (and many other Christians), such does not justify her irrational approach to truth.

Red herring of what?

Just what I got done saying!

There was no point to try and distract from. Anne might react as you suggest she would react (her being a figment of your imagination) or Anne might react as I suggested: in the same way that you claim you would react (logically).

I was referring to to Anne continuing to believe in her Christ for the reasons she does while rejecting other God(desses) who can be said to be real for the same reasons. Your red herring was your saying that nonChristians sometimes think like that.

Christ existed long before I was born, so no, I could not have.

You could have made up your version of Christ--the one you say speaks to you. In fact, I'd bet everything I have that your Christ is totally imaginary.

That's illogical because if Christ was all good and all-powerful, then he wouldn't wait allowing people to suffer.

Well, thank you for your opinion, but it isn't anything more than an opinion.

To say Christ must wait to help people is to say he's impotent. An omnipotent Christ cannot be impotent.

And Christ is not the One who decides the timing; God decides that. God is the One who knows when the time is right. The timing is planned "just so."

Then God is impotent too. An all-mighty and impotent God cannot exist.

It's no wonder people are turning to Clarymda! Why waste your time believing in imaginary Gods and Christs when a real Goddess loves you?

Finally, thank you for your opinion, but it isn't anything more than an opinion!!!

[brunumb]

Christ (not man, not religion, not one's own reasoning) is the KEY to opening the scriptures. He is the Teacher.

Whoever taught you that taught you incorrectly.

[tam]

Peace to you,

If merely reading a book was always enough to understand it, why would so many people come to different conclusions? Why would anyone need a teacher to help explain the content and concepts?

The book is the source, therefore why are there so many teachers who have read the same book and reached different conclusions?

Perhaps because there are so many who profess to be teachers when they should not be teachers?

Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.



Peace again to you!