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 -
By looking at which more accurately reflects the meaning of the text? Meaning is able to be gathered from language; that's kind of a central feature of speech. I can't just take your comment however I would like and expect that to be legitimate.
I don't think caring about truth is something that should be dismissed (even though I am willing to concede that not every true thing is equally important). Paul writes "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15). It's not just that it sounds nice and draws us together, Paul at least thinks that the content of what he is saying must be true, it is vital.
Perhaps that's a little of what's going on. It's not exactly that it's abstractly truth that matters, since clearly not every fact in the world (e.g. that there is currently a piece of a leaf within my field of view) is of equal importance. Rather it's that some things are important, and it is important that Christianity convey those things. That is to say, Christianity is about Christ, not just Christians.
If Catholics are incorrect about their dogmas, then they are (to an extent) incorrect about what they think the church is, since they believe Rome infallible.
You are still interpreting infaillibility as logical truthfullness. Rome is infaillible because what Rome says must be believed. If you want, Rome might not be wrong because the truth is whatever Rome says.
I'm not following entirely. Are you arguing for a different sort of infallibility than Rome professes itself to have?
It's the only one that the Pope can really have. If Rome pretends to always tell the truth in a logical way, it's obviously false as some teachings have been contradictory. But if now you admit that it is not about the truth in a logical way, but about what must be believed, then it all makes sense. It even makes sense that they pretend to tell the truth in the usual meaning: they have to pretend it, because if something must be believed, it must be believed as if it were the only truth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link