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 -
If you have to ask, you fundamentally do not understand Christianity, or its concept of repentance or grace. You appear to be using a model where forgiveness is for lesser sins, but too much sin means that this forgiveness is overwhelmed. In the first place, there are no lesser or greater sins; all sins are alike in that they all involve rejection of God, his nature and his creation. In the second place, what prevents forgiveness from working is not the amount of sins committed, but rather the refusal of the sinner to repent, leading eventually, one way or another, to an inability to repent.
It's pretty normal in Christianity to admit of degrees of guilt. See, for example, when Jesus wishes woe upon Capernaum, saying that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them. See also how some kings of Israel are praised but caveated, whereas others are outright condemned, because the first class forbid pagan gods but allowed worship of God in the high places, whereas the worse kings allowed pagan worship.
You'll also see some people saying that the sin that's committed has effects on willingness to repent, but I'm not really knowledgeable of that.
More options
Context Copy link
It's hard to say uniformly "what Christians believe" about sin and hell because of denominational drift. The Catholic church certainly teaches different levels of eternal punishment exist for different degrees of unrepented sin. (And, correspondingly, different levels of virtue in life grant different amounts of glory in heaven.)
So yes, it's a mess. Even the most agreed-upon doctrines, such as that any sinner can repent and be saved; find dissent in at least a few churches, such as Calvinists with their TULIP.
(While I'm here, another denominational difference: a Catholic would say that Lily Philips loses eternal punishment for sleeping with 100 men by repenting, but the damage to her soul still requires purification, which can be accomplished in this life or after death. Eastern Orthodox Christians have a similar idea, but they have 'purification after death' rather than purgatory, and it varies in the particulars.)
As a Calvinist, it's the case that:
For everyone, if they were to repent, would be saved. Not everyone will in fact repent, but only those whom God predestines.
This isn't unique to the Calvinists, though. You'll see the same thing here among the more predestination-leaning Roman Catholics (like those following Thomas Aquinas) or Lutherans (like Luther or Walther, but not like Gerhard, if I remember correctly).
(Also, the TULIP acronym isn't ideal, especially in that the L is considerably more optional within the Reformed tradition than the other four. But it's a popular characterization, and frequently used by those within.)
Predestination-leaning Roman Catholics are just "Roman Catholics". God perfectly foresees the free choices men make within time, and thus has perfect knowledge of who will be saved. This, in the Catholic view, does not infringe on the agency of the sinner in responding to/failing to respond to grace. Some people see this as a logical contradiction: "If God already knows I'll steal cream from the office fridge on Tuesday, how do I have a free choice?" But the teaching makes good sense to me, as God exists outside of time; an easier way to conceptualize it might be to imagine that we made choices at the beginning of time, but are now experiencing them linearly.
Which leads to the core difference:
Per Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, the very choice to repent is motivated purely by God, and the choice not to repent is likewise compelled by God. Agency does not exist. The sinner who will not repent was never free to repent, and the elect who repents was never free not to repent. The universe is a clockwork contraption devised for a glorious divine drama.
If God designed it that way, Lily Philips could never not sleep with 100 men, nor repent for sleeping with 100 men. It was all a plan, scripted by God, for God's greater glory.
I do not see the calivinist view as inherently ridiculous (or even monstrous, as people often describe it), but it is a real difference from other denominations.
Sure, but there's a difference as to what extent God's will is seen as posterior vs. prior to the decision, right?
I know there were big controversies between Jesuits and Dominicans at some point, and the Franciscans had still another position, I believe.
Yes, it does depend upon God giving us a new heart, etc. etc.
Well, not in the same way. It's not a direct action on the part of God; it's the inevitable result of our fallen state barring divine grace.
Sure it does. We're just, in our fallen states, bad agents, at least in the respects relevant in these instances.
This depends pretty heavily on what you mean by free.
Well, I'm not necessarily committed to that. I'd be fine with, for example, direct action by God in determining how quantum states collapse each time. I'm not actually endorsing that position specifically, but I have no problem with it. But sure, I have no problem with a deterministic world, and it is for God's glory. Just don't use determinism as a grounds to minimize it.
Depending on what you mean by "could," sure. But surely you also would agree that conditional on God's knowing that Lily Philips would sleep with 100 men, that would necessarily happen? And not only knowledge, but as part of God's decrees in ordering the world—his will, not just his knowledge? I mean, Molinists would affirm that, not just Thomists, correct?
Are you aware of the Dominican-Jesuit debate? Do things like "physical premotion" mean anything to you? (Note that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on these myself.) Are you aware that the esteemed Thomas Aquinas is thoroughly on the more strongly predestinarian side of these himself?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is not really true. It's true in the same sense as it would be true to say "material determinists claim that there certain orderings of a deck of cards that can never be created." Some orderings of the cards will never be created, and since material determinism says that the entire course of the universe is already set, in a sense that's equivalent to saying that there are some orderings which "can never" be created. But for all practical purposes it would be a misleading way to phrase it.
The same applies to Calvinism. Calvinists teach that everything which will come to pass has been foreordained by God from eternity. This means that those who are foreordained not to be saved, "can never" be saved. But it's not due to anything special in the person nor susceptible to our analysis ahead of time. Certainly it is not a Calvinist doctrine that certain sinful acts allow us to know here and now someone's predestined fate.
More options
Context Copy link
It's true that there's a ton of denominational drift, but I don't think you can find a central example of Christianity that claims to be able to observe this specific carnal sin, and conclude that the sinner is therefore straightforwardly damned without hope of redemption. I'm pretty sure even the Calvinists would claim that it's at least theoretically possible that this girl might be one of the elect, that despite her recent behavior she'll be saved by God.
What about the sin against the holy spirit?
Hence "this specific carnal sin", ie banging a hundred dudes in one day. Interpretations of "The sin against the Holy Spirit" vary wildly, but I've never heard of a version that claims this specific obscenity would qualify.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link