This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You confuse “universal care for strangers” with the prescription to love one’s neighbor. First, the acceptance of a stranger into the community was contingent upon their complete conformity to the Jewish law in Ancient Israel. Second, early Jewish Rabbis defined “neighbor” as other Jews. These are two different things.
For some reason, you feel it is fine to ignore all the scriptural evidence. I showed you how the elements of the parable only make sense in the context of an ancient Israelite “neighborhood”. But then I showed you how all of the apostles interpreted “neighborhood” to mean brotherhood. You are ignoring this because you want to ignore this, I guess? I have no idea.
Origen goes on to explain what he means by that. “But we should not think that it applies to every man. For, not every man "goes down from Jerusalem into Jericho," nor do all dwell in this present world for that reason, even if he who "was sent on account of the lost sheep of the house of Israel" went down. Hence, the man who "went down from Jerusalem into Jenicho" "fell among robbers" because he himself wished to go down. But the robbers are none other than they of whom the Savior says, "All who came before me were thieves and robbers." […] This is how he understands the parable. That the Samaritan is Christ. You misquoted. He doesn’t say everyone “ought” to do that. Yes, we behave like the Samaritan, in a particular capacity and context which is symbolized in the parable…
This is demonic. You are trying to destroy the very idea of a church brotherhood. That will, and has already, destroyed Christianity. It destroys brotherly love and casts pearls to swine. It is also nonsensical. You do not love enemies like strangers, strangers like neighbors, or neighbors like brothers. Have you really never asked yourself why we have all these commands for brotherly love, when according to your reading, we should be loving everyone on the earth as brothers? Why on earth would the apostles talk so much about the “brotherhood” and “brotherly love” if they were expected to love everyone the same?
I did not misquote Origen, you're reading him backwards. Origen is pointing out that Jesus is both the Samaritan and the man beset in his allegory. he clearly thinks that the church accepts all those that wish to enter, he says so outright, the fact that not everyone goes on a journey and gets mugged does not mean that you don't help those that get mugged. That is why he concludes the homily with: "According to the passage that says, “Be imitators of me, as I too am of Christ,” it is possible for us to imitate Christ and to pity those who “have fallen among thieves.” We can go to them, bind their wounds, pour in oil and wine, put them on our own animals, and bear their burdens. The Son of God encourages us to do things like this. He is speaking not so much to the teacher of the law as to us and to everyone when he says, “Go and do likewise.” If we do, we will receive eternal life in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen." Remember that Origen states that the man going down in his allegory is Adam, aka the stand in for all of humanity. I don't know what more you could want. You keep acting like this parable only makes sense read your way but the entirety of church history has been able to make sense of it just fine. You can still say you are the one that got it right, but at some point your are just doing the meme http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/files/2015/02/11007614_628927553920047_152492327_n.jpg
The apostles wrote to churches about how to be churches. It isn't surprising that the content of these is focused that way. But the work of the apostles was out there with strangers, both jew and gentle, relying on the hospitality of strangers themselves. Are you trying to claim the rabbis taught that you had to cut off someones foreskin before offering them a cup of water? Really? The same rabbis that set up a court for the gentles in their temple? They taught everyone that they could ignore Lev 19:34? You seem to think it doesn't exist or that the fact that they had the same expectations in law keeping placed on them as the Jews placed on themselves somehow means that they weren't being loved, when its evidence of the opposite attitude. The whole rationale that God gives for his commandment in Leviticus was the Jewish experience as strangers in Egypt and I have already demonstrated it clear connection that Jesus draws in his answer. The loving thing to do for a stranger is to initiate him into the community. This is an evangelistic and universalistic faith that demands that you make the stranger your brother, it always has been. It is love that makes the enemy a stranger, a stranger a neighbor and a neighbor a brother. My reading has embraced every scripture you have cited, integrated it with the whole of scripture and the history of the church. There is no contradiction between having a rule of order and loving your neighbor. I have said over and over that strangers who take advantage should be cut off, regarded like Judas, but you have to start with love and a welcome in. Ultimately, you are calling the great commission to go and make disciples demonic, and I don't know what to say to that. My concern is that your reading of the parable simply can't explain the historical record and runs roughshod over scripture that doesn't fit, which is the same problem I have with progressive theology.
We are going in circles so maybe I’ll try a clear counterfactual.
If we love everyone as ourselves, then it would be against the commandment to do good ”most of all to spiritual brothers”. What would be the justification for doing most of our good to the brothers, if the whole world must be loved as oneself?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link