site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023

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.

I find this impossible to square with the contents of the Gospel, for instance that those who say “Lord, Lord” but do not help poor brothers are damned and in fact never knew him.

I don't see how that example is at all difficult to be squared with the beliefs of the early protestants (If I'm parsing that correctly). (Feel free to model me as an early protestant.)

As Jesus clearly says for us to do things, “believe in Jesus” would very much mean that we have to do things.

Right, believing in Jesus is not separable from doing things, though it would not itself be the doing of those things.

With none of the "carry our cross daily"

Are we reading the same early Protestants?* Here's Calvin:

[W]e are consecrated and dedicated to God, and therefore should not henceforth think, speak, design, or act, without a view to his glory. What he hath made sacred cannot, without signal instult to him, be applied to profane use. But if we are not our own, but the Lord's it is plain both what error is to be shunned, and to what end the actions of our lives ought to be directed. We are not our own; therefore neither is our own reason or will to rule our acts and counsels. We are not our own; therefore, let us not make it our end to seek what may be agreeable to our carnal nature. We are not our own; therefore, as far as possible, let us forget ourselves and the things that are ours. On the other hand, we are God's; let us therefore, live and die to him. We are God's therefore, let his wisdom and will preside over all our actions. We are God's; to him, then, as the only legitimate end, let every part of our life be directed…Let this, then, be the first step, to abandon ourselves, and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God.

and

The pious mind must ascend still higher, namely, whither Christ calls his disciples when he says, that every one of them must "take up his cross." Those whom the Lord has chosen and honored with his intercourse must prepare for a hard, laborious, troubled life, a life full of many and various kinds of evils; it being the will of our heavenly Father to exercise his people in this way while putting them to the proof. Having begun this course with Christ the first-born, he continues it toward all his children…Why then should we exempt ourselves from that condition to which Christ our head behooved to submit; especially since he submitted on our account, that he might in his own person exhibit a model of patience? Wherefore the apostle declares, that all the children of God are destined to be conformed to him. Hence it affords us great consolation in hard and difficult circumstances, which men deem evil and adverse to think that we are holding fellowship with the sufferings of Christ that as he passed to celestial glory through a labyrinth of many woes, so we too are conducted thither through various tribulations.

So there certainly is a carrying of your cross. But if your point is that that is not the means by which the atonement applies, that is correct.

What do you mean by "you do it with zero faith"?

I definitely think Christianity is beneficial, provided it is explored in the right way. I consider it something like… “clothed philosophy”. The Logos becomes Man, to ease the yoke and lighten our burdens. Because I think if a person is able to see how maximally joyful human life could be, they would consider their current lives to be approximately hell. Religion is about the perfection of human life, so it turns philosophy into story and ritual. So I see everything in Christianity as intended to make us better, not just morally but in emotion (spirit) as well. I think without this in mind, religion is apt to become superstitious and then wasteful and ultimately deadening.

Am I correct in reading this that you don't think that Christianity is true, merely beneficial?

*a rhetorical question

Going to use bullet points just for ease of replying to individual things

  • If Protestants hold that “believing in the crucifixion is sufficient to save us from the punishment of sin and guarantee the new life”, then they can’t also hold “Christ says you must perform certain actions to be resurrected into the new life”. Christ specifically says that those who believe in him but do not perform certain actions will be thrown into hell, because Christ is found in the poor-off brother, and so whatever you do to him you do to Christ. These two conceptions of the Judgment are mutually exclusive. If anyone holds that “believing alone” guarantees salvation at the judgment, or that the crucifixion alone as something one agrees happened, they have to deny what Christ said on numerous actions: that certain actions are required to be saved from hell. Now, if instead you take “faith” to mean “assenting to every word Jesus says”, then this expansive-defined faith is sufficient. Because under the umbrella “faith” you find “must do certain actions to be freed from hell”. These actions are in Christ in the sense of spirit, they spring up from the Christ in a person versus a person’s identity. Yet, they must be performed using your mind and body and heart.

  • Re “it would not itself be the doing of those things”, Christ specifically says that it is the doing of those things. If Christ wanted to say that simply professing he is God saved, then he would say that. But he says certain things just be done, else hell.

  • The Protestants you posted do not believe that imitating Christ is what grants heaven and the new life. Instead they suggest you do it. This is actually what I wrote by the way. The problem is that there is hardly a motivation, because simply believing that Jesus died for sins is sufficient to save someone from damnation.

  • Re: truth of Christianity, no. Truth does not necessarily mean historicity or literalism. Literalism is not the way many early Christians interpreted scripture. A thing can be true because it represents greater truth.

Re: what faith is, the historical protestant definition involved both knowledge and trust, not knowledge purely.

If Christ wanted to say that simply professing he is God saved, then he would say that.

And he does express, several times, that faith is sufficient.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 6:40: For this is the will of my Father, that whoever looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Romans 10:9: If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Protestants usually understand the passages about what sorts of people enter eternal life either to be true because those who are justified by faith are also sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit, or to be talking about what the law requires, which Christ has satisfied.

Re: truth of Christianity, no. Truth does not necessarily mean historicity or literalism. Literalism is not the way many early Christians interpreted scripture. A thing can be true because it represents greater truth.

Ah, but look at what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 15:14: And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

So Paul, at least, thinks that the actual literal claims are important, in at least one particular.

Jesus also consistently takes scripture seriously.

We’re back to the same question of what “believe” entails. Does it entail “believe Jesus’ warnings and statements”, or does it entail “believe he exists”? These are very different, as “believe in his statements” means everything he told us must be done to not be damned. For instance in John we read,

If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love

Consider also that both the Greek words for “gospel” and “at hand” were commonly used to refer to a messenger carrying a good message, as in the case (for instance) of a messenger bringing good news about the decisions of a faraway King. If I believe in the Messenger, then I believe in all of the contents of the message. If the messenger says “believe in me or be damned”, I don’t say “I believe you are a messenger”, instead I read and believe the contents of the message. In this case, Jesus came with a message from the Father in Heaven. Most of the gospel is this message, and contains dire warnings to sinners. If Jesus says “those who don’t help the poor go to hell”, we should take him at his word, and not presume that this command is abrogated later. It would make no sense to issue these commands only for the command to later be totally abrogated in the easiest possible way (believing Jesus exists). It would essentially nullify half the Parables as having no utility, because the warnings are useless as all you have to do is believe a being exists. In fact it would be impossible to make sense of the Rich Man and Lazarus, where a rich man was sent to hell forever for being greedy. And it would again be impossible to make sense of the passages about the sinners who say “Lord, Lord” being damned, because Christ’s juxtaposition is between Doing Good to Brothers versus Not Doing Good. The juxtaposition wasn’t “believe I exist” versus not.

I know, I explicitly mentioned that protestant readings of faith involved trust.

It is not the case that believing consists in obedience to what he says (at least, not in the sense that, if you fail to do so adequately, you have not believed). This fits neither Paul, nor Christ himself.

Consider Christ's saying "Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

But compare this to his words elsewhere. He condemns, not merely murder, but also anger. Not merely adultery, but also lust. And says that insulting someone merits the damnation of the one doing so! Christ is preaching rigor.

See also Paul: Galatians 3:12: "The law is not of faith, rather "the one who does them shall live by them.""

Paul distinguishes faith from action.

As to that parable, I guess I don't see why that's a problem. Nowhere does it say that those who care for the poor will be in Abraham's bosom.

And the warnings aren't useless. People are damned for those things, and they are bad.

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