Christianity and Thought Terminating Cliches

Jaywill referred to this in a recent thread:

John Calvin (A.D. 1509 - 1654)

"In considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God's Word."

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123131


The term [thought terminating cliche] was popularized by Robert Jay Lifton in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Lifton said, “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”

...Thought-terminating clichés are also present in religious discourse in order to define a clear border between good and evil, holiness and sacrilege, and other polar opposites.

Examples:

"God has a plan and a purpose."
"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away." Job 1:21
"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" (opposing same-sex marriage)
"God works in mysterious ways."
"Forgive and forget."
"That's not Biblical."
"Jesus loves you." (ignoratio elenchi)
"I'll pray for you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9


Is Calvin's statement an encouragement to use thought terminating cliches to keep oneself from thinking?

EDIT - also from Wiki

The religious or semi-religious ideas of cults, heretics, and infidels are also often used as thought-terminating clichés, e.g. "Do not listen to him, he is an infidel"

Bumper stickers for the Lord. My favorute is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". You can go no further with any conversation after that has been said.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Jaywill referred to this in a recent thread:

John Calvin (A.D. 1509 - 1654)

"In considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God's Word."

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/boa t-terminating clichés, e.g. "Do not listen to him, he is an infidel"[/i]

I think that it is a matter of perspective, for it may also be argued that these cliches, can provide, food for thought.

'god has a plan and purpose',- well i would say for the enquiring mind, that this is food for thought, what is indeed gods plan and purpose, if this is indeed the case

'adam and eve not adam and steve', - this again on the surface is just a cheap trick of a thought terminating cliche, for there are a host of other biblical principles which are diametrically opposed to the idea of same sex marriages. One must of course acknowledge that what may be an issue for a non Christian, is perfectly settled in the Christians own mind, thus, especially in the matters of morality, what is there to discuss? its not a question of intellectual laziness any more than a black and white issue can be!

'forgive and forget', again it is food for thought, to what extent should we forgive and is it indeed possible to forget in the case of serious wrongdoing?

'that's not biblical', again any sincere inquiring would be forced to offer a refutation as to why his statement was biblical, if indeed he was arguing in favour of a biblical perspective.

all in all, i think that the thought terminating cliche fails for they are neither offer any type of intellectually satisfying answer and leave the enquirer with more questions than answers, and thus, as a consequence, provide food for thought!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Jaywill referred to this in a recent thread:

John Calvin (A.D. 1509 - 1654)

"In considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God's Word."

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/boa t-terminating clichés, e.g. "Do not listen to him, he is an infidel"[/i]

==========================================
Is Calvin's statement an encouragement to use thought terminating cliches to keep oneself from thinking?
==================================

No it is not.

Read the quote again and notice the words "we should speculate soberly and with great moderation".

A great many intelligent people would not have a knee jerk negative reaction to the suggestion that at times "we should speculate soberly and with great moderation." That would be true of many subjects of speculation.

Originally posted by buckky
Bumper stickers for the Lord. My favorute is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". You can go no further with any conversation after that has been said.

===============================
Bumper stickers for the Lord. My favorute is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". You can go no further with any conversation after that has been said.
======================================

I kind of like "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved ?"

This one was good too:

"If you're too busy for God, you're too busy."

I got banned recently from a forum over this topic. I was obnoxious about it which is why I was banned (to the head moderator no less), but I'll throw the situation out there. It's relevant.

I gave a long, thorough argument about the abortion issue. The head moderator shows up and says something like this:

"No matter what you say, it's still a human life being destroyed. There's nothing to discuss."

Now, as the center of my argument was based around the fact that "a human life" is a meaningless phrase - we don't have to go into that here, but that's how he responded.

I responded to his response, and he copy pasted the same thing again, completely ignoring my response to this phrase.

Now that's a thought terminating cliche. The guy refused to think critically about the phrase - he used it as a shield to wall off rational thought.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I got banned recently from a forum over this topic. I was obnoxious about it which is why I was banned (to the head moderator no less), but I'll throw the situation out there. It's relevant.

I gave a long, thorough argument about the abortion issue. The head moderator shows up and says something like this:

"No matter what you say, it's still ...[text shortened]... nk critically about the phrase - he used it as a shield to wall off rational thought.

yes, but you must realise that to him the issue had been resolved. we cannot state that he simply came to this conclusion, without the process of reason, otherwise, how could he make the statement. there must have been a reason why he constituted an aborted foetus as human life, is it not the case?

To you, it was perhaps an entirely different issue, you may have been interested in discussing the idea of what constitutes a human life, that is fine, but others must have also reasoned within their own minds, what also constitutes a human life and thus, to them the issue was resolved. it seems therefore to me, that such a statement does not really terminate the issue, only as far as the individual is concerned, to others it is different, because the process is an ongoing one. we cannot state that he refused to think critically about it, unless of course he had come to the conclusion through another process, not the reasoning's of his mind, only that he had drawn a conclusion and a line under it, whereas others were still deliberating.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I got banned recently from a forum over this topic. I was obnoxious about it which is why I was banned (to the head moderator no less), but I'll throw the situation out there. It's relevant.

I gave a long, thorough argument about the abortion issue. The head moderator shows up and says something like this:

"No matter what you say, it's still ...[text shortened]... nk critically about the phrase - he used it as a shield to wall off rational thought.

Yuh!! thats just nuts.. I bet he was a male.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Jaywill referred to this in a recent thread:

John Calvin (A.D. 1509 - 1654)

"In considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God's Word."

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/boa ...[text shortened]... t-terminating clichés, e.g. "Do not listen to him, he is an infidel"[/i]

Is Calvin's statement an encouragement to use thought terminating cliches to keep oneself from thinking?

On the contrary, it seems plain that Calvin's statement is meant to encourage thinking, considering he actually says that we should speculate on the hidden mysteries of Scripture (synonyms for "speculate" are meditate, ponder, reflect and think). What Calvin is advocating is cautiousness, sober-mindedness and moderation while pondering the "hidden mysteries of Scripture," in order not to misconstrue or ultimately misinterpret what is actually there. I would imagine this is good, scholarly advice for anyone wanting to understand Scripture better.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I got banned recently from a forum over this topic. I was obnoxious about it which is why I was banned (to the head moderator no less), but I'll throw the situation out there. It's relevant.

I gave a long, thorough argument about the abortion issue. The head moderator shows up and says something like this:

"No matter what you say, it's still ...[text shortened]... nk critically about the phrase - he used it as a shield to wall off rational thought.

I can't imagine you getting banned. Is this somehow connected to these posts about "new moderators"?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I can't imagine you getting banned. Is this somehow connected to these posts about "new moderators"?

Yeah..one of Darvlay's posts was removed from the "tiger woods" thread in the sports forum. I cant imagine what for...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I got banned recently from a forum over this topic. I was obnoxious about it which is why I was banned (to the head moderator no less), but I'll throw the situation out there. It's relevant.

I gave a long, thorough argument about the abortion issue. The head moderator shows up and says something like this:

"No matter what you say, it's still ...[text shortened]... nk critically about the phrase - he used it as a shield to wall off rational thought.

i take it all back, you are absolutely correct, i have no idea!

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I can't imagine you getting banned. Is this somehow connected to these posts about "new moderators"?

I told him he sounded like a brainwashed cultist.

http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2009/11/battle-of-trolls-maori-troll-vs-obama.html

Hmmm so if I post that I think Obama is a half-witted, America-hating, cult figure who knows nearly nothing, and MAY not even be an American, but has people mesmerized by his very presence, afraid to say anything negative for fear of being called racist, I might be banned?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Hmmm so if I post that I think Obama is a half-witted, America-hating, cult figure who knows nearly nothing, and MAY not even be an American, but has people mesmerized by his very presence, afraid to say anything negative for fear of being called racist, I might be banned?

Maybe, but for certain you will be rec'd.
Repeatedly.
Non-subs would join just to rec your post.