site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   30240 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Doesn't this strike you as bizarre?

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright? The thug who murders someone's whole family sincerely converts and is forgiven - but the victim goes to hell because she can't let go of her hatred for this bastard?

Real justice systems don't work this way, there is no unlimited forgiveness and for very good reason. I feel confident that the vast majority of Christians in history did not truly believe this, their threshold for unforgivable sinning was much lower.

The state may absolutely still put that thug to death, or whatever other punishment.

Yes, the hatred is sufficient to merit hell. This is not unusual or weird in Christianity. Essentially everything we do merits hell. We are only saved through Christ's work. If the victim is not united with Christ, then, sure, improperly proportioned hatred for the thug suffices to damn.

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright?

In the next life, if his conversion is genuine and he repents for his past sins etc. Doesn't mean he'll escape consequences (legal or otherwise) in this life.

The thug who murders someone's whole family sincerely converts and is forgiven - but the victim goes to hell because she can't let go of her hatred for this bastard?

Forgiving others (which doesn't necessarily mean trusting them or anything else like that) is one of the hardest commandments to follow, but it was given by the mouth of Christ Himself:

"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

In my specific subset of Christianity (Mormon) it's even more strict:

"Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death. My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin."

That Christians have been imperfect and unable to consistently live up to the requirements set by Christ doesn't make it somehow not Christian doctrine. We're imperfect, which is one of the reasons the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ was required in the first place. We're going to mess these things up, over and over again, but that doesn't mean they aren't things we keep striving for.

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright?

Part of repentance is confession and taking responsibility for what you've done. If Kony is truly repentant, he should confess his crimes, make restitution to his victims, turn himself in to the authorities and submit to punishment willingly.

Before I try to address your post, it's important to note that some of the answers here are going to vary a lot based on denomination. The basic doctrine of "repent for sins, get forgiven" is the same across every denomination, but once you get into the details things vary. So just bear in mind that on some of the things I'm saying there isn't a monolithic Christian viewpoint. I'm giving you the Catholic viewpoint.

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright? The thug who murders someone's whole family sincerely converts and is forgiven - but the victim goes to hell because she can't let go of her hatred for this bastard?

There are a few misconceptions here. First, hell is not a punishment for acts we have committed. Hell is what happens when you have chosen being apart from God during this life - once you die, you get what you wanted and are separated from him in the afterlife. It is miserable not because God wishes to punish people, but because he is the source of all good things. So by separating yourself from him, you wind up in a place where you can only experience bad things. But as CS Lewis memorably put it, the gates of hell are locked from the inside.

Second, Catholics believe that after you die (if you are going to end up in heaven) you will go through a period of purgation as the stain of sins you committed is erased (through means we can only guess at, but it's generally believed it will be painful). Yes, God forgives you for your sins, but they still happened and they still have consequences for you. And based on the exact sins you committed, you will suffer a varying amount as your soul is purified.

Third, all people are equally flawed compared to God (because they are being compared to a perfect standard), but not all sins are ones which mean you will go to hell. Remember, that hell is really about choosing sin over God and not a punishment, so only some sins are so serious that they constitute a break in your relationship with God. The example Bishop Barron gives (which I found helpful) is to use the analogy of a person who does something inconsiderate toward a friend. Some things are minor and weaken the relationship, but don't destroy it. But some things are so serious that the friendship is dead afterwards because of the level of disregard shown.

So to go back to your example of a murderer and the family of one of his victims. The murderer will not be in hell, because he repented and God is merciful. But he will very likely have to suffer the consequences of his sin in purgatory. Meanwhile, the family member will probably also not go to hell, because her hatred is not a mortal sin. She will also have to suffer the consequences of that sin in purgatory, but they will probably be less than what the other person suffers because the sin was not as serious.

Real justice systems don't work this way, there is no unlimited forgiveness and for very good reason.

God is not running a justice system with the various factors that they need to take into account. Like I said, hell is about your relationship with God and not punishment for sins.

I feel confident that the vast majority of Christians in history did not truly believe this

It's official church teaching and has been since the very beginning. That doesn't mean that the actual people truly believed it, but the doctrine is very clear on this point.

This is a good answer, though I'll just add that the current view of hell you describe is very much the post Vatican II (ie from the 60s onwards) position. Prior to that there was a lot more focus on the concept of hell as punishment and torment etc.

There is also some debate amongst modern theologians about the nature of hell, as the idea that it's meant to be both eternal and due entirely to the self-rejection of God can be difficult to square, though this is certainty the current Catholic position.

Yeah, and purgatory was normally considered as involving punishment too.

My semi-educated guess as a non-Christian is that they would draw a distinction between divine forgiveness and temporal forgiveness. “Kony embraces God and he’s alright” is the wrong framing: he may be forgiven by God (though of course we humans can never truly know that), but we are under no obligation to forgive him for his heinous acts as a matter of Earthly law. At least not forgive him immediately and unconditionally.

See also: rendering unto Caesar

I don't think they truly believed this, but then again I find it hard to believe most Christians in general truly believe. It does seem, however, to be in character for a social technology that optimizes for maximum converts and maximum adherence to their practice. Come to us, literally any and all, and you will receive everything in the afterlife as long as you do what we say, no matter the past.

Irredeemable sinners would be a failure of such a system, as they have no more incentive to obey.

It's not that difficult to believe, because it's all conceptual and doesn't cash out anywhere - no-one can point to someone in heaven (or hell) that they think shouldn't be there, so there's never a challenge to the belief system.

I don't think they truly believed this, but then again I find it hard to believe most Christians in general truly believe.

Frankly, that seems to me to be a failure of imagination on your part. Most people believe their religion, regardless of what it is.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats