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 -
...Provided you are correct, and "properly analyzing these works" means agreeing with you. Alternatively, they have their own analysis, and while you can dismiss it at your pleasure, we are equally free to dismiss you at ours. There is little point in discussion where agreement with your bespoke interpretations is set as a precondition for engagement.
Sure! But at the end of the day there is a correct answer, the people who put the pen to paper did so for specific reasons. I think Christians are forced into a wrong interpretation. Of course they believe their interpretation is correct, although frankly speaking they mostly just ignore the Old Testament except as setup for Jesus.
So you assert. And if we assert back that in fact our interpretation is correct, what then? From an inside view, we could argue over the verses themselves. From an outside view, we could observe that Christianity has been an absurdly successful religious and cultural force by pretty much any metric you could select, and despite reports of its demise for the last century continues to wield considerable (and in my view growing) influence even now.
I certainly can't speak for all Christians, having not met most of them. When I was a child, the Old Testament was my favorite part of the bible. When I was a youth, it was my least favorite as I found it strange and disconcerting. With maturity, it now seems of a piece with the New Testament, and many of the parts that seemed harsh and unforgiving now make good sense. The churches I've attended did not ignore the Old Testament, but they certainly treat them as "setup for Jesus" since that's, you know, the central thesis of our entire religion. This is the thing you do where you frame the discussion on the assumption you are right and everyone else is wrong. You haven't elaborated on how Christians supposedly do this, or why you believe they do, so what response is possible other than "no, that seems incorrect"?
If one believes that the correct way to read the OT is as setup to the NT, what's the proper way to argue that with you? Your argument that Christians "mostly just ignore" the OT is absurd on its face, given the amount of Christian teaching, commentary and theology centering on the OT. Your claim that Christians are "unequipped to properly analyze" the OT because their "religion is so deeply rooted in the mythos itself" seems to be an attempt to disqualify people with a deep knowledge of the subject at hand because they care too much, as opposed to dispassionate, detached observers of the Judaic mythos such as yourself. Is that about the size of it?
I contend that we do not, in fact, ignore the OT, that many among us study it in great detail, and that we are no more unequipped to properly analyze it than you are. Make an argument if you have one, but spare me the empty, pompous pretense of sophistication.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link