Cognitive dissonance and theology

[JLB]

Can you bold/underline the Scripture you have presented that indicates any cognition of there being any of “His servants” placed on the left where they are sent to the place prepared for The Devil and his angels?

Yes.

31 Now when the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them from one another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left.
Matthew 25:31-33

Like a shepherd... separates.

These are people, not actual sheep and goats.

However they all belong to the shepherd.

The context makes it clear.

All the stories that Jesus used to illustrate this, starting in Matthew 24:45 involve His servants.

Some were faithful.
Some were not.

I will use the last one that He told which establishes direct context.


14 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. 15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. 16 Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. 17 And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. 18 But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord’s money.19 After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

20 “So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, ‘Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.’ 21 His lord said to him, ‘Well done,good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’22 He also who had received two talents came and said, ‘Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.’ 23 His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’

24 “Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’

26 “But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed.27 So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. 28 Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.
29 ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 31 Now when the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them from one another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left Matthew 25:14-33

Key phrase.

For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Someone wanted examples of cognitive dissonance in a theological perspective.
What is cognitive dissonance? This is jumping between ideas which do not actually
link and accepting they do.

In reality we do this all the time, because often we do not have time to make the
connections, and just have to accept the group understanding. This is fine until we
discover the concepts are not connected and the jump is a way of avoiding awkward
realities.

So one obvious one is God is a God of love, yet He bring judgement and destroys many
things.

By "obvious one" does this mean an example of cognitive dissonance? Why is the statement one of cognitive dissonance? It is simply 2 sides of the same coin. Are coins an example of cognitive dissonance? Of course not.

I got this definition of the meaning of cognitive dissonance from the internet at the top of all the links that came up:
"Cognitive dissonance happens when our beliefs do not match up with our behaviors."

So, the best example of cognitive dissonance is found in the point that James was trying to make in 2:14-26. Those of faith need to demonstrate their faith to others, which is the only way others will be able to see their faith.

Another is we are called to see the world ordered by His will, yet some are born into
extraordinarily difficult situations and others have it easy. Is this fair?

Please explain how fairness vs unfairness relates to cognitive dissonance.

In theological discussions one point would be, Jesus promises something so this applies
to all, eternally, while in the next paragraph He puts conditions on the promises but this
only applies to some listeners.

Please provide a clear example of this.

So a classic example is this sentence by Jesus,
21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Matt 7:21-24

Looking at the sentence. To know Christ and God is to do His will.

The context from v.21 is about entering the kingdom, or, how to get to heaven, get saved, etc.

So, "doing the will of My Father" has to relate to getting into heaven specifically, not just generally the will of the Father.

So, we know the will of the Father regarding getting saved in John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Is your understanding that Matt 7:21-24 is an exampe of cognitive dissonance?

Thanks.

 

[chessman]

As you can see from this post, I’m not mentioning or associating Matthew 7:23 with Matthew 25:41

I asked a member a question from the OP’s topic (and yes it was on topic) and from the OP’s Sermon on the Mount scripture (Matt 7:23 which is about false followers):

Wouldn’t Jesus words indicate that the otherwise cognitive Truth is that He actually “never knew” evil doers?

Your reply (while avoiding actually answering my question ABOUT Matt 7:23) brought in Matt 25:41, which is about how to distinguish an evil servant from a good servant):

What we do know for sure, because we have scripture, is He will put His servants into one of two groups,

con·fla·tion
kənˈflāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

So I asked you a question about this second/different Scripture and different subject in Matt 25:42, which you again avoided answering yet brought up a third Scripture.

Like a shepherd... separates.

These are people, not actual sheep and goats.

However they all belong to the shepherd.

So I will ask you a question about this third passage: Do shepherds herd sheep or goats?

 

[Edward]

Cognitive Dissonance begins with intelligence (Romans 8:7) because the carnal mind is enmity against God. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14), therefore we must not try to understand them with our "intelligent" (LOL) mind by leaning to our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6).

You do not have to be able to fully understand the hows and whys of everything about God in order to trust Him!!
Think how a toddler merely trusts their parent without understanding of what they're doing. Are we not have become as children?

I used to be real smart (LOL!)...then I began walking with the Lord. The more time passes, the less I feel I know. This is what He is teaching me.

Have you ever noticed that the only educated disciple that Jesus had...was the one who betrayed Him?!
We got a couple teachers on this board. Educated men. You can't talk to these guys, they're too smart for their own good. Proud of their edumacation...

 

[PeterJens]

By "obvious one" does this mean an example of cognitive dissonance? Why is the statement one of cognitive dissonance? It is simply 2 sides of the same coin. Are coins an example of cognitive dissonance? Of course not.

I got this definition of the meaning of cognitive dissonance from the internet at the top of all the links that came up:
"Cognitive dissonance happens when our beliefs do not match up with our behaviors."

So, the best example of cognitive dissonance is found in the point that James was trying to make in 2:14-26. Those of faith need to demonstrate their faith to others, which is the only way others will be able to see their faith.

Please explain how fairness vs unfairness relates to cognitive dissonance.

Please provide a clear example of this.

The context from v.21 is about entering the kingdom, or, how to get to heaven, get saved, etc.

So, "doing the will of My Father" has to relate to getting into heaven specifically, not just generally the will of the Father.

So, we know the will of the Father regarding getting saved in John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Is your understanding that Matt 7:21-24 is an exampe of cognitive dissonance?

Thanks.

Hi Free,

There is a simple point about the perception of cognitive dissonance.
It is simply where the real world outside our perception behaves in one way and we believe it behaves or
could behave in another.

So I could claim to be able to control the weather by the words I speak. Now this is not impossible, if I
was God or God listens to my request or I have some direct influence over the forces involved. It is though
something as children we learn is out of our control, and as we cannot command a paper clip, how could we
command the weather? There are believers who have claimed they can command the weather.
The problem with such a claim is you would need to show it, for anyone to believe this. Now to accept another
could do this without evidence, would be an example of cognitive dissonance.

I have had believers claim their words predict or dictate their future. So if they admit they are ill, they will be ill,
even when they are actually ill.

Now some have claimed we are all born equal, with the same choices and opportunities and dispositions as
others. This is clearly not the case. Some say sexual desire, addictive tendencies etc are the same for everyone,
so if you find certain behaviours simple, so does everyone else. Clearly this is not the case.
It is the miss-match between the "real" world and the world in our heads shows up gaps.
Now what makes things more complex is the real world is also a construct, a perception, based on observations,
but is reliable, and often the best we can work with. I would put scripture into this catagory also, as many of the
facts people doubted from scripture have been shown to be accurate.

On the subject of fairness of life, we will know when we meet Him, because it is all wrapped up in Gods will.
Joseph forgave his brothers, because by Gods will being sold into slavery, he became a ruler in Egypt and
was able to save the family. So we will always need to exercise faith, and have a cognitive dissonance over
how and why. So though one can be aware of issues, it does not mean they can all be resolved.

God bless you

 

[chessman]

Why is the statement one of cognitive dissonance?

The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.​

1 John 4:8 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 John 4:8&version=LEB

The statement is not CD, some interpretations of the passages from which it is derived can be. For example, Universalists will snip “... God is love” out of it’s context (indeed out of it’s sentence) and cognitively dispute the fact that God also judges and then destroys evil people. Thus, their cognitive reasoning is flawed in several aspects:

1. It’s a snip, not a verse.
2. It’s a noun (love is here a noun which is very unusual) not a verb (loving)
3. The verse’s statement is teaching an attribute of the one not knowing God, not so much teaching about God’s attributes.
4. Universalists insert their own idea about what ‘loving’ means.

 

[FreeGrace]

Hi Free,

There is a simple point about the perception of cognitive dissonance.
It is simply where the real world outside our perception behaves in one way and we believe it behaves or
could behave in another.

This was my point from my first post:
"I got this definition of the meaning of cognitive dissonance from the internet at the top of all the links that came up:
"Cognitive dissonance happens when our beliefs do not match up with our behaviors."

So, it's not, as is being suggested, about viewing reality differently. It's about when our beliefs do not match up with our behaviors.

So I could claim to be able to control the weather by the words I speak.

This is not CD. Maybe insanity, but not CD.

Now this is not impossible, if I was God or God listens to my request or I have some direct influence over the forces involved. It is though something as children we learn is out of our control, and as we cannot command a paper clip, how could we command the weather? There are believers who have claimed they can command the weather.

I suggest reading up on CD in order to understand what it really means.

The problem with such a claim is you would need to show it, for anyone to believe this. Now to accept another
could do this without evidence, would be an example of cognitive dissonance.[/QUOT]
No, it is not an example of CD.

I have had believers claim their words predict or dictate their future.

Sounds as if they were mentally ill.

So if they admit they are ill, they will be ill, even when they are actually ill.

Yeah, mentally.

But still, this isn't an an example of CD.

Now some have claimed we are all born equal, with the same choices and opportunities and dispositions as
others. This is clearly not the case. Some say sexual desire, addictive tendencies etc are the same for everyone,
so if you find certain behaviours simple, so does everyone else. Clearly this is not the case.
It is the miss-match between the "real" world and the world in our heads shows up gaps.
Now what makes things more complex is the real world is also a construct, a perception, based on observations,
but is reliable, and often the best we can work with. I would put scripture into this catagory also, as many of the
facts people doubted from scripture have been shown to be accurate.

I'm not seeing how any of this has any relation to CD.

James gave us a good example of cognitive dissonance in James 2:15,16.

Since James' letter was to Jewish believers, we know the hypocrite in those 2 verses was a believer, but one who only gave lip service to those in need.

 

[JLB]

I asked a member a question from the OP’s topic (and yes it was on topic) and from the OP’s Sermon on the Mount scripture (Matt 7:23 which is about false followers):


Your reply (while avoiding actually answering my question ABOUT Matt 7:23) brought in Matt 25:41, which is about how to distinguish an evil servant from a good servant):

con·fla·tion
kənˈflāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

So I asked you a question about this second/different Scripture and different subject in Matt 25:42, which you again avoided answering yet brought up a third Scripture.

So I will ask you a question about this third passage: Do shepherds herd sheep or goats?

I remind you of the subject of this thread.

Cognitive dissonance and theology


I simply said the following, because of the theology part of this thread topic, because I haven’t found these words you stated I knew you for a while but then you committed to much sin for me to accept you’ , in the Bible.


Since we don’t have any scripture of Jesus saying ‘I knew you for a while but then you committed to much sin for me to accept you’, we just don’t know what all He will say to each of us.

What we do know for sure, because we have scripture, is He will put His servants into one of two groups, and say these words.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34

Or He will say -

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41


Jesus was speaking to His servants, on the Day of Judgement which the context plainly indicates.

If you disagree then ok.

We’re not always going to agree.


JLB

 

[Pegasus]

So one obvious one is God is a God of love, yet He bring judgement and destroys many
things. Another is we are called to see the world ordered by His will, yet some are born into
extraordinarily difficult situations and others have it easy. Is this fair?

Such can only be cognitive dissonance if we apply it to YHWH's thought process. Which we should all know would not apply to the un-Created Creator.

For us, we are the observer of what has been revealed by YHWH. Therefore, the example you give would either be observed by us (in human terms) either a contradiction (skeptic approach) or a paradox (Biblical approach). There is another approach taken by some liberal skeptic theologians that God is dualistic in nature. However, such is post-modern open theism rubbish.

YHWH clearly reveals to us we have limited knowledge and capacity to Him.

Isaiah 55: WEB
6 Seek Yahweh while he may be found.
Call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts.
Let him return to Yahweh, and he will have mercy on him;
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.


8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
and your ways are not my ways,” says Yahweh.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky,
and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth,
and makes it grow and bud,
and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 so is my word that goes out of my mouth:
it will not return to me void,
but it will accomplish that which I please,
and it will prosper in the thing I sent it to do.

 

[Runner]

Cognitive Dissonance begins with intelligence (Romans 8:7) because the carnal mind is enmity against God. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14), therefore we must not try to understand them with our "intelligent" (LOL) mind by leaning to our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Have you ever noticed that the only educated disciple that Jesus had...was the one who betrayed Him?!
We got a couple teachers on this board. Educated men. You can't talk to these guys, they're too smart for their own good. Proud of their edumacation...

This attitude is itself an example of cognitive dissonance. "I realize that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, and thus I tell myself that I am especially capable of perceiving spiritual truth. I tell myself that the sharper tools, although they function more effectively in virtually every other area of life, are especially incapable of perceiving spiritual truth. I tell myself that my limitations are, in fact, a great virtue." A statement such as this has nothing to do with perceiving spiritual truth - it is simply a way to cope with the realization that one is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I don't get the feeling that those who are discussing this topic understand what cognitive dissonance is. Here is a good one-page introduction from a Christian site, although it contains no religious content whatsoever: http://globalchristiancenter.com/bi...tic-theology/1116-cognitive-dissonance-theory.

First two paragraphs:

"Let your pretense become your reality" (Myers, 1999, p. 293). Leon Festinger understood this. A social psychologist from Stanford University, he developed cognitive dissonance theory in 1957. This was spurred when he saw the need to avoid dissonance as basic as the need for safety and food (Griffin, 2003). "Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance has been one of the most influential theories in social psychology" (Franzoi, 2000, p. 170). It was developed in the concept of homeostasis, which is maintaining equilibrium within an organism (or within a person, in this case) (Neel, 1977). Cognitive dissonance theory can be boiled down to the following concept: We feel motivated to justify our actions (Myers, 1999). It predicts that we spend most of our time rationalizing our behavior instead of pursuing rational action (Franzoi, 2000).

Cognitive dissonance is defined as a feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that is inconsistent with one's attitudes (Franzoi, 2000). Basically, people have a need to try to bring their attitudes in line with their actions (Myers, 1999). Because people seek consistency among their cognitions, when there is an inconsistency between behaviors and attitudes, one must change so the dissonance will be eliminated (Kearsley, 2003). Griffin (2003) defines cognitive dissonance as "...the distressing mental state that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold" (p. 209). Festinger proposed a "Process Model of Cognitive Dissonance" to describe the process through which a person advances when experiencing dissonance. It includes the following: attitude/behavior inconsistency, dissonance created, attitude change, and dissonance restored (Griffin, 2003).​

Extreme examples of those living in a state of cognitive dissonance in the Christian context would be Flat Earthers and Young Earth Christians. All extreme Bible literalists exist in a state of cognitive dissonance to some considerable degree. This is not necessarily "bad" per se, but it is the reality.

Placing great value on a lack of intelligence and/or a lack of education is, of course, effective in politics and religion because the majority of people do fit into the category of "not extremely intelligent" or "not extremely educated." So casting aspersions at those high-falutin' educated types is one way to get elected or fill your pews; the yokels lap it up. The Bible message, however, is simply that a high level of intelligence or education is not required in order to perceive spiritual truth and, in a haughty spirit, may be an impediment to perceiving spiritual truth.

Romans 8:7 has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It has to do with "the mind set on the flesh" (NASB). 1 Corinthians 2:14 has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It has to do with "the natural man" (NASB). Proverbs 3:5-6 has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It has to do with "leaning on your own understanding" rather than "trusting the Lord with your heart."

Certainly in the OT, intelligence and education were highly prized. See, for example, Daniel 1:17 (NASB): "As for these four youths [Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah], God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams."

Paul was highly educated and intelligent. This is why Festus exclaimed "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning has driven you mad!" (Acts 26:24). Paul makes clear, however, that his education and intelligence were not why he perceived spiritual truth - he perceived it as the result of a direct encounter with Christ.

I am not defending intelligence and education (as though anyone needed to). I am merely pointing out that those who attempt to turn a lack of intelligence and education into a virtue exemplify cognitive dissonance.

 

[Free]

I don't get the feeling that those who are discussing this topic understand what cognitive dissonance is. Here is a good one-page introduction from a Christian site, although it contains no religious content whatsoever: http://globalchristiancenter.com/bi...tic-theology/1116-cognitive-dissonance-theory.

First two paragraphs:

"Let your pretense become your reality" (Myers, 1999, p. 293). Leon Festinger understood this. A social psychologist from Stanford University, he developed cognitive dissonance theory in 1957. This was spurred when he saw the need to avoid dissonance as basic as the need for safety and food (Griffin, 2003). "Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance has been one of the most influential theories in social psychology" (Franzoi, 2000, p. 170). It was developed in the concept of homeostasis, which is maintaining equilibrium within an organism (or within a person, in this case) (Neel, 1977). Cognitive dissonance theory can be boiled down to the following concept: We feel motivated to justify our actions (Myers, 1999). It predicts that we spend most of our time rationalizing our behavior instead of pursuing rational action (Franzoi, 2000).

Cognitive dissonance is defined as a feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that is inconsistent with one's attitudes (Franzoi, 2000). Basically, people have a need to try to bring their attitudes in line with their actions (Myers, 1999). Because people seek consistency among their cognitions, when there is an inconsistency between behaviors and attitudes, one must change so the dissonance will be eliminated (Kearsley, 2003). Griffin (2003) defines cognitive dissonance as "...the distressing mental state that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold" (p. 209). Festinger proposed a "Process Model of Cognitive Dissonance" to describe the process through which a person advances when experiencing dissonance. It includes the following: attitude/behavior inconsistency, dissonance created, attitude change, and dissonance restored (Griffin, 2003).​

I had thought of saying something but didn't have the time.

Placing great value on a lack of intelligence and/or a lack of education is, of course, effective in politics and religion because the majority of people do fit into the category of "not extremely intelligent" or "not extremely educated." So casting aspersions at those high-falutin' educated types is one way to get elected or fill your pews; the yokels lap it up. The Bible message, however, is simply that a high level of intelligence or education is not required in order to perceive spiritual truth and, in a haughty spirit, may be an impediment to perceiving spiritual truth.

Romans 8:7 has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It has to do with "the mind set on the flesh" (NASB). 1 Corinthians 2:14 has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It has to do with "the natural man" (NASB). Proverbs 3:5-6 has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It has to do with "leaning on your own understanding" rather than "trusting the Lord with your heart."

Certainly in the OT, intelligence and education were highly prized. See, for example, Daniel 1:17 (NASB): "As for these four youths [Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah], God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams."

Paul was highly educated and intelligent. This is why Festus exclaimed "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning has driven you mad!" (Acts 26:24). Paul makes clear, however, that his education and intelligence were not why he perceived spiritual truth - he perceived it as the result of a direct encounter with Christ.

I am not defending intelligence and education (as though anyone needed to). I am merely pointing out that those who attempt to turn a lack of intelligence and education into a virtue exemplify cognitive dissonance.

Agreed.

 

[WIP]

I am certainly "guilty" (if that's the word) of not supporting my views with scripture. I post here so seldom that I had forgotten the rules, and frankly I didn't even notice that this thread was in the theology sub-forum. I see that the rules simply require that "Original posts should reference specific scripture" and "If you believe that someone is in error you must respectfully cite scripture to support your assertion." Since I am not in violent disagreement with anything Peterjens wrote and saw myself as building upon what he had written, perhaps I am not culpably "guilty."

Anyway, there are a variety of approaches to Christian theology that draw from a variety of sources. Perhaps the focus of this forum is really intended to be systematic theology and this should be spelled out in the forum rules. Perhaps a post about the different approaches to theology would be useful. Some of the major writings of one of the greatest Christian theologians of the twentieth century, Paul Tillich, would not qualify as theology if "citing scripture" were an essential element.

Christian belief does not begin with the Bible. It begins with a belief that there exists a creative divine intelligence. This foundation may ripen into a belief that this creative divine intelligence is the God of Christianity and that the Bible is his message to mankind. But certainly theology does not inevitably involve the Bible at all, and even Christian theology is not limited to the Bible as its only source.



Did those who never knew him falsely prophesy in his name, perform bogus miracles in his name, only pretend to cast out demons in his name? Do the verses not suggest that they were sincerely perplexed to learn that they had not been genuine followers?

How about Luke 9:49-50 (NASB)?

John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."​

Hmmm. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I do think that what it means to be a "follower of Christ" is the central mystery, the answer to which is the key to unlocking all the other mysteries and leading a spiritual life. I think it means something different and larger than what most Christians think it means. I think Jesus was pointing the way. There is an old Buddhist adage, "Do not mistake the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon itself."

It's not about following the letter of the rules but about following the spirit of the rules. For the purpose of this forum, Theology is the study of what we believe and why we believe it. Therefore the bottom line source for answering these questions is the written Word of God. In the spirit of the rules, when presenting differing opinions, perspectives, views, believes, etc., we need to provide the Biblical reference(s) that show why we believe what we believe. Anything else is just another opinion.

 

[Runner]

One more contribution here, and then I will take my vast (albeit divinely gifted) intellect and vast (thanks, Dad!) education back to golf and motorcycle forums where they are more appreciated. At least at the golf forums, the people realize that one's ability to hit a 3-wood off a tight lie is directly related to one's intelligence and education.

It might be useful to think in terms of areas where Christian theology does NOT produce cognitive dissonance. Whether OSAS or OSNAS is correct is not a matter of cognitive dissonance. It is simply a matter of biblical hermeneutics. One can easily hold an OSAS or OSNAS position without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

At least for me, and I assume for all Christians, the doctrine that we live in a God-created universe and are God-created beings does not produce cognitive dissonance. The doctrine that human nature is fundamentally flawed, with a propensity toward evil, does not produce cognitive dissonance. The doctrine that, as created beings, we are wholly dependent upon our creator does not produce cognitive dissonance. The doctrine that, as flawed beings, we are dependent on our creator's mercy and grace does not produce cognitive dissonance. The doctrine that our creator takes a direct providential interest in our daily lives does not produce cognitive dissonance. Even the doctrine that Jesus was resurrected does not produce cognitive dissonance.

These doctrines do not produce cognitive dissonance because they square with my experiences, observations, studies and intuition. They do not conflict with any other beliefs that I hold. Indeed, the fact that they square with my experiences, observations, studies and intuition are why I describe myself as a Christian. This does not mean they are true, of course. An atheist or Buddhist might insist that I am living in a state of cognitive dissonance because his experiences, observations, studies and intuition tell him something entirely different. The reality is, at least two of the three of us are wrong, but it is entirely possible that none of us is living in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Once one adopts the Christian framework, then some doctrines do produce cognitive dissonance. Trying to hold a Flat Earth or Young Earth position would, for me, produce a state of serious cognitive dissonance. Other, somewhat more mainstream, doctrines would as well. So I don't hold them. I ask myself whether they are essential to my belief system, and the answer is no. As I have suggested, I believe that Bible idolatry inevitably produces a state of cognitive dissonance and that a large majority of Christians waste their time trying to deny this dissonance rather than facing and transcending it.

It's not about following the letter of the rules but about following the spirit of the rules. For the purpose of this forum, Theology is the study of what we believe and why we believe it. Therefore the bottom line source for answering these questions is the written Word of God. In the spirit of the rules, when presenting differing opinions, perspectives, views, believes, etc., we need to provide the Biblical reference(s) that show why we believe what we believe. Anything else is just another opinion.

Am I allowed to respond to red-letter postings, or are they like Jesus' words in the Bible? To say that "the bottom line source for answering these questions is the written word of God" is to say that this is a systematic theology forum. Very legitimate theological questions include Is there a God? Is God the God of Christianity? Is the Bible the word of God? In what sense and to what degree is the Bible the word of God? and so forth. If the question is simply What does the Bible say about that?, this is more in the vein of hermeneutics or systematic theology. All of which is fine - a theology forum might well be limited in this manner, and you have clarified that this one is. But even in this narrower context, the theological discussions typically boil down to "just another opinion" supported by a string of proof texts, followed by a series of "just another differing opinions" supported by their own strings of proof texts. This seems unavoidable to me.

 

[WIP]

Am I allowed to respond to red-letter postings, or are they like Jesus' words in the Bible? To say that "the bottom line source for answering these questions is the written word of God" is to say that this is a systematic theology forum. Very legitimate theological questions include Is there a God? Is God the God of Christianity? Is the Bible the word of God? In what sense and to what degree is the Bible the word of God? and so forth. If the question is simply What does the Bible say about that?, this is more in the vein of hermeneutics or systematic theology. All of which is fine - a theology forum might well be limited in this manner, and you have clarified that this one is. But even in this narrower context, the theological discussions typically boil down to "just another opinion" supported by a string of proof texts, followed by a series of "just another differing opinions" supported by their own strings of proof texts. This seems unavoidable to me.

Just trying to clarify the intention of the rules. At the risk of taking this any further off topic, I'll just say here that the kind of questions you raise above sound more apologetic in nature than theological and we have a forum set aside for that purpose as well. I could be wrong as I am not the most informed in this regard. Hope this helps.

At any rate, we shouldn't continue to go back and forth debating the rules in this thread so if you still have questions, it might be best to start a thread in the Questions & Suggestions for Staff forum.

 

[Runner]

Just trying to clarify the intention of the rules. At the risk of taking this any further off topic, I'll just say here that the kind of questions you raise above sound more apologetic in nature than theological and we have a forum set aside for that purpose as well. I could be wrong as I am not the most informed in this regard. Hope this helps.

At any rate, we shouldn't continue to go back and forth debating the rules in this thread so if you still have questions, it might be best to start a thread in the Questions & Suggestions for Staff forum.

Fair enough, although I don' think we're debating at all. At least I didn't think we were. The line between "philosophy of religion," "theology" and "apologetics" is not always clear, although theology typically focuses on a particular religion such as Christianity (and apologetics certainly does). Likewise, the line between the various branches of theology is not always clear. Google "branches of theology" and you will discover that what the branches are is not entirely clear.

It seems to me that what you conceive of the Theology forum as being - which is perfectly legitimate - is confined to what is typically called systematic theology or perhaps biblical theology. This is a good overview of those two branches of theology: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/biblical-versus-systematic-theology.php.

A discussion of cognitive dissonance strikes me as a very odd topic for a Theology forum and to be more in the vein of philosophy of religion or epistemology. I believe a systematic theologian or biblical theologian would either have no interest whatsoever in a discussion of cognitive dissonance or deny that it exists within his theology. It would be the critics of his religion or theology who would raise the issue of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Jim Parker]

cognitive dissonance

Here ya go: it's a psychology thing.
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance, etc.
For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition).
Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). This is known as the principle of cognitive consistency.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

So, in theology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a Jewish boy tells his orthodox parents that he want's to become an Episcopal priest and marry his boyfriend, Larry. 2

 

[Jim Parker]

Placing great value on a lack of intelligence and/or a lack of education is, of course, effective in politics and religion because the majority of people do fit into the category of "not extremely intelligent" or "not extremely educated." So casting aspersions at those high-falutin' educated types is one way to get elected or fill your pews; the yokels lap it up.

2 You are SOOOOOO right!!!