Did Paul And Jesus Differ On The Need To Think And Reason As A Child?

[readyforchange]

This is something I have wondered for a while, and it has to do with a statement Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 13.  This is Paul discussing spiritual gifts and includes his famous passage on love.  In 1 Corinthians 13:11, Paul states, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways" (NRSV).  So Paul is saying that as an adult, he put an end to childish ways, and those childish ways included thinking like a child and reasoning like a child. 
 
But in Luke 18, there is a passage where Jesus blesses the little children.  This is Luke 18:15-17, which states, "15 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. 16 But Jesus called for them and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. 17 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” (NRSV).

 

Towards the end of Luke 18:16 through 17, it seems as though this is Jesus saying that it is to such as these (the little children) that the kingdom of God belongs, and that a person is required to receive the kingdom of God as a little child, because without receiving the kingdom of God as a little child, one will never enter it.  So my question is, as an adult, in order for an adult to receive the kingdom of God as a little child, wouldn't an adult need to be able to think and reason the way a child does?  Are Paul and Jesus saying something different here?  Is there any context I am missing from these passages, or are they talking about separate concepts?

[megasamurai]

The child metaphor probably means two different things. Jesus spoke of the faith children have. They can believe in flying reindeer and elves with no skepticism. Paul probably meant that people should reason moral scenarios as adults. Children think "me, me." Experienced adults understand charity better. 

[readyforchange]

The child metaphor probably means two different things. Jesus spoke of the faith children have. They can believe in flying reindeer and elves with no skepticism. Paul probably meant that people should reason moral scenarios as adults. Children think "me, me." Experienced adults understand charity better.

Thanks for the quick response megasamurai. I saw your post last night but did not have a chance to reply then. Appreciate the feedback. Can see what you're saying to a degree. The way 1 Corinthians 13:11 reads seems to encompass anything that can be associated as child-ish or child-like as something an adult needs to put away - with speaking, thinking and reasoning as examples within the whole collection of possible child-ish or child-like things. To where, the moral reasoning as a child in your example would be be a subset of anything that can be considered as child-ish or child-like. I guess what does not make sense to me is the literal meaning of speaking, thinking and reasoning - as in these as action verbs. It seems that in order to put into practice what Jesus is saying in Luke, an adult would need to first think as a child just to be able to define what a child-like faith is, in order to apply it (as in the act of thinking itself). Like as an adult, in order for you to come up with your example of a child-like type of faith to believe in flying reindeer and elves with no skepticism, you first had to mentally think of this example - and by extension, think in the way a child would. But the 1 Corinthians 13 verse seem to imply that to even think of your example in the first place would go against what the verse states, as in the act itself of thinking as a child by an adult(in order to define how a child thinks) is something to be put away. Plus, for an adult to put a child-like faith into practice, that would take an ongoing, continual state of mind on the part of the adult, to continually look at faith as if through the eyes of a child - equivalent to thinking and reasoning as a child.

 

Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I am probably overthinking it, which I can do at times.

[sdelsolray]

Apocalyptic religions are apocalyptic.  Children get pulled into that nonsense,

[readyforchange]

Apocalyptic religions are apocalyptic.  Children get pulled into that nonsense,

This is what gets me: If I was Paul, and if I knew (through my divine revelation) that when Jesus was alive he told the disciples that "...Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it", why would I come behind that years later and tell the church at Corinth that thinking and reasoning as a child are things that need to be "put away"? Even trying to account for different circumstances and possible contexts, it seems contradictory, or at least undermining the essence of the command from Jesus.

[FlowerDemon]

This is another thing why the Bible isn't infallible like Christians claim. This whole issue can be interpreted in many ways.

 

Here's how I look at it: Since 1 Corinthians was a letter Paul wrote specifically to the Corinthian churches, I think when he mentions "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways", he is referring to morality. Before he became a follower of christ, he just did things impulsively without thinking, much like a child does. But then when he became older and more spiritually mature as a christian, maintaining the morality taught by Jesus became important in his life. He was trying to be a good example to the Corinthians, demanding that they quit doing all these sinful things and give their lives to god. That's how I interpret it though. 

Jesus, on the other hand, was referring to a Christian's faith. It kind of ties in with Proverbs 3:5-6, lean not on your own understanding but rely on god's understanding. It's teaching you to approach god with a childlike mentality, having strong faith without requiring scientific historic archaeological evidence and full understanding. Approaching him as an obedient child approach his father, already believing he is right.

 

You're gonna get different answers on this, probably answers not quite on the same page as mine. Everyone who reads the bible interprets it in their own way and that's why it cannot be 100% accurate and true. The same goes for any book, even history books have bias and different opinions in them sometimes.

[readyforchange]

This is another thing why the Bible isn't infallible like Christians claim. This whole issue can be interpreted in many ways.

 

Here's how I look at it: Since 1 Corinthians was a letter Paul wrote specifically to the Corinthian churches, I think when he mentions "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways", he is referring to morality. Before he became a follower of christ, he just did things impulsively without thinking, much like a child does. But then when he became older and more spiritually mature as a christian, maintaining the morality taught by Jesus became important in his life. He was trying to be a good example to the Corinthians, demanding that they quit doing all these sinful things and give their lives to god. That's how I interpret it though. 

Jesus, on the other hand, was referring to a Christian's faith. It kind of ties in with Proverbs 3:5-6, lean not on your own understanding but rely on god's understanding. It's teaching you to approach god with a childlike mentality, having strong faith without requiring scientific historic archaeological evidence and full understanding. Approaching him as an obedient child approach his father, already believing he is right.

 

You're gonna get different answers on this, probably answers not quite on the same page as mine. Everyone who reads the bible interprets it in their own way and that's why it cannot be 100% accurate and true. The same goes for any book, even history books have bias and different opinions in them sometimes.

Thanks for your insight FlowerDemon. I can see the morality versus faith aspect to a degree. I thought about the Proverbs verses earlier as well and how they may describe having a child-like faith. In considering "thinking" and "reasoning", I just find it hard to separate these as individual acts independent from what Jesus states in Luke. For example, if someone asked me the question, "Readyforchange, how would you define child-like faith, and how one should live out a child-like faith?" As an adult, in order for me to provide a definition and explanation, I would first need to think of how a child is and how a child acts. Which seems to be equivalent to saying that I need to think as a child, in order to just determine what child-like faith means in the first place. And as an adult, I would need to reason as a child would, in order to continue to believe in something that may not make much sense, is contradictory, or does not have direct, hard evidence. I'm probably overthinking it. Yeah, there are so many ways the Bible can be interepreted - the number of different Christian denominations in existence today directly illustrates that.

[Geezer]

One of the biggest issues in the de-conversion process, in my opinion anyway, is determining whether the Bible is a collection of real historical events or a collection of myths & legends. If the Bible stories were real events then one might want to rethink the idea of leaving their faith because that decision will surely seal their eternal fate.

 

If, however, the Bible is simply a collection of ancient myths, and the main characters are fictional, then it is really a fairy tale with a religious theme & it should not be taken literally, or even seriously.

 

The answer is most likely found in the field of historical critical religious scholarship. I believe it would be wise for those who are considering leaving their faith to investigate that field of study before making an uninformed decision.

[FlowerDemon]

One of the biggest issues in the de-conversion process, in my opinion anyway, is determining whether the Bible is a collection of real historical events or a collection of myths & legends. If the Bible stories were real events then one might want to rethink the idea of leaving their faith because that decision will surely seal their eternal fate.

 

If, however, the Bible is simply a collection of ancient myths, and the main characters are fictional, then it is really a fairy tale with a religious theme & it should not be taken literally, or even seriously.

 

The answer is most likely found in the field of historical critical religious scholarship. I believe it would be wise for those who are considering leaving their faith to investigate that field of study before making an uninformed decision.

 I made my decision and left Christianity before I did a lot of studies, because I had already done some studies before...which means i already had many doubts/disagreements/conflicting personal views. They lingered in my 7 year chaotic game of indecisiveness: faith and no faith. those lingering doubts, and my personal feelings/thoughts about christianity lead me to deconvert. it wasn't until after I deconverted when I dove into ex-c.net and other sites and articles to read about my doubts/concerns/disagreements more. and that was what "sealed the deal", from that point i knew without a doubt... i didn't believe in all of that.

 

but i still generally agree with you that people shouldn't leave their faith without actually learning about the bible on a deeper level than most christians claim they do. hell, i never even read the whole bible when i believed, and i avoided leviticus like the plague!