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 -
And it is believed Pauline by basically all scholars. You think he was just being a devious liar in that?
Anyway, Acts also confirms contact with the disciples of Jesus.
No, I'm saying that Saul saying that Saul confirmed with James etc. that what he was teaching was correct doesn't tell us much because of course he would say that.
Only if you think him a devious liar, which, it seems, you do.
It's not about lying. People routinely interpret events the way that fits their convictions, and routinely dismiss things that may disagree with those convictions, often even without realizing it. That's why, for example, peer review in science exist. If somebody does some research which they believe is true, but then some reviewers point out the original researcher omitted or misinterpreted some facts and the conclusions are unwarranted, would it be correct to call the original researcher a "devious liar"? I don't think so.
I think we can safely assume Saul genuinely believed all he was preaching, and was convinced his Christianity is exactly what Jesus would want to happen. I can not know that for a fact, but I have no objection to assuming it. That does not contradict the fact that what we know as "Christianity" has been largely built by him and the veracity of all the claims ultimately goes back to him.
As a martial arts practitioner, I often encounter people claiming that they continue certain traditions - often claiming the same tradition coming from the same sources. Nevertheless, many of those people adopt radically different approaches and practices. How can that be? Are some of them - or all of them - liars to claim the traditional roots? I do not think so. Traditions are complex and changing with time, and different people take different things and develop them in different directions. Some directions flourish, some wither. Same tradition can be developed and embodied in many different ways.
Saul created his own embodiment of what he saw as a (quite young by then) Christian tradition, and that's largely what we know as "Christianity" now. For better or worse, there's no other. Even if there were, I think it'd be quite hard to claim one of them is more "true" than the other. But having none - at least none that is not traced back to Saul - what do we have to stand on comparing to Saul's Christianity?
I think you're right that that wasn't sufficiently warranted by what he said there (though it was clear that @BurdensomeCount thought that from elsewhere). Mea culpa.
That said, I think the chance of inauthentic development is substantially decreased by the continued contact with the apostles, and the approbation of the Pauline position, as seen in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. You may want to qualify that, but it's clearly the case that they agreed with at least elements of what he's doing, and it seems that they sent him on his journeys.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough, yes I do that. I'm Muslim personally and we mostly lay the blame for the corruption of the word of God as given to Isa on Saul's feet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link