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 -
Since religion is also part of culture wars, it is time for sharing some latest religious culture war battles, this time on Judeo-Christian front, originating from the crucified bird site.
1/ Case of Lizzie Marbach
Lizzie Marbach, Republican and anti abortion activist from Ohio, person with 7k followers and otherwise not notable, posted this.
There's no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone.
This is Christianity 101, this is exactly what Christian is supposed to say and believe. There is no reason for anyone to be surprised.
Except Max Miller, Jewish Republican representative of Ohio with 52k followers who was not amused.
This is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen
Mega dead bird storm ensued, and many people came to Lizzie's side to support her.
Including Ilhan Omar.
Things went so far that Max Miller was forced to apologize.
GOP lawmaker apologizes for ‘religious freedom’ tweet
But, nevertheless, Lizzie Marbach lost her job.
Pro Life Advocacy Group Fires Comms Director After GOP Rep Called Her A ‘Bigot’ For Sharing Her Faith
By sheer coincidence, Miller’s wife, Emily Moreno Miller, sits on the board of Ohio Right to Life.
This thing will continue, and it is not looking good for official GOP.
2/ Case of Darryl Cooper, rather lighter one.
Darryl Cooper, known as Martyr Made on the interwebs, substacker, podcaster on several sites and dead birder with 173k followers.
So this is rather important person, in internet terms, who suddenly decided that this is the time, of all things, to preach to Jewish people and convert them to Christianity.
It turned out that lot of his followers are Jews who do not appreciate being evangelized, especially by such D- apologetic piece. Massive dead bird storm ensued, and DC doubled, quartupled and octupled his efforts.
Darryl Cooper himself seems to be rather unorthodox Christian of somewhat Marcionite tinge. This makes the whole thing more confusing, what exactly are his Jewish followers supposed to convert to?
What have these cases in common? They illustrate the difficulty of actual interfaith cooperation between sincere believers in different faiths. If you really believe in truth of your religion, it is realy hard to desist from preaching and evangelizing, and even harder to do not take offence if you are (or perceive to be) preached at and evangelized by your fellows.
The first issue is fascinating: there is a serious disagreement between the left and the right in the US about what freedom of religion actually means. I think the left qualifies it in a sort of paradox-of-tolerance way: you don't get to excuse intolerant views by claiming that they are part of your religion. Otherwise, religion just becomes a giant loophole in the rules that make the pluralistic society of the US actually work: believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't make you impose anything on other people. All the recent fights about LGBT rights vs. religious freedom are a pretty strong demonstration of this actual fundamental values difference.
Therefore, for a lot of the left, the actual answer here is bluntly that these parts of Christianity are actually bigoted---drop them or deal with the justified condemnation. Omar/Miller's particular fight is just an important reminder that the divide on how much deference to give religious beliefs doesn't cleanly split left/right. If you feel that this divide is important, maybe you should rethink whether certain politicians are actually on your side or not. I personally much preferred the political alignment from back in the day of internet atheism fights.
This is by no means limited to "the left" unless you can show that "the right" generally had nothing against 9/11, or would be in favor of bringing back human sacrifices, or being in favor of polygamy. Everyone thinks that religious freedom is fine as long as the exercise of that freedom doesn't impinge on someone else's rights to a sufficient degree.
Yes, you can be Muslim, but you can't jihad skyscrapers to the ground regardless of how sincere your religious conviction is. You can revive asatrue (or whatever one might call the aztec state religion), but you can't raid surrounding villagers for prisoners to sacrifice. Yes, you can be Mormon, but you can't have a harem of child brides, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Not this again!
More options
Context Copy link
It also goes with the left’s view that so called bigotry in public is actually punishable. I think they misunderstood why Jim Crow was bad and don’t grasp Common Carrier v thick markets.
Do you mind expanding on this? I'm not familiar with the terms.
Common carrier is a designation from common law. It covered concepts like for example a single train line from X to Y. The idea was that because the market was thin, the common carrier should not discriminate against customer (and indeed since the service wasn’t bespoke at all this was easy). The idea was the common carrier was in a near monopolistic position. It also applies to say a single hotel between Oxford and London (same principle).
Compare that to thick markers where there are numerous providers of the same good. Since there is no monopolistic position there isn’t really a need to enforce a non discrimination provision.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
MartyrMade was actually responding to a comment from Rabbi Mike Harvey, who considers himself an expert on "interfaith dialogue" between Jews and Christians - and in the quintessential rabbinical fashion, this mostly involves cursing at Christians and calling for vague action against them. Rabbi Harvey has this odd habit of writing incendiary tweets calling Christians genocidaires, fascists, monsters, etc., then apologizing while claiming he was hacked, then deleting his account, and then doing the same thing all over again a few months later. He just deleted his Twitter account around the time MartyrMade posted that reply to him, and will probably be back by Christmas time to complain about the stifling environment of the holiday season. I don't know who he thinks he's fooling.
I'm sure Jews don't appreciate being mocked and evangelized, but posts like MartyrMade are really just returning the favor in kind. We put up with a lot of "interfaith dialogue" from them.
Part of the problem is that Rabbi is a much weaker designation than most Christian religious leaders (ie. priest/bishop/monk/reverend/whatever). The Christian designations typically involve actively leading a congregation, which means a moderate to considerable number of followers and/or having achieved some rank in the hierarchy of a large Christian institution (the Catholic church, Church of England, a large Evangelical denomination etc. that has standardized qualification for religious leaders and a hierarchy of power).
Rabbi means 'teacher' and the sole 'qualification' is that another rabbi declared you to be a rabbi. You don't need to be a religious leader, significant scholar or have any institutional role whatsoever. Even more organized Jewish groups that approximate some aspects of church credentialism are pretty lax when it comes to who counts as a rabbi, enforcement is usually reactive rather than proactive. In this guy's case he worked at a few reform synagogues and was then 'ordained' as a rabbi, but the Reform movement in the US has no real ordination process, so this is a pretty vague thing. You can't be kicked out of being an Orthodox or Reform rabbi, at most other Orthodox or Reform Jews might consider you less legitimate on some level. Only for Orthodox Jews in Israel is there some standard with the rabbinate (which can't declare you not a rabbi, it can only declare certain things you do illegitimate), and that obviously doesn't apply to an American reform rabbi.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For a Congressman to be so boisterously confrontational about religion as a member of a religion that constitutes only ~1-2% of a nation's population speaks volumes about some combination of American religious tolerance or the cultural supremacy of that Congressman's religion. I cannot imagine a Hindu or Buddhist Congresscritter acting this way. Muslim, perhaps, which is interesting in its own right.
I just don’t see how it would be controversial or more properly how backward people’s understanding of religion must be to be upset about the tenets of a religion or religious people stating them. To be a Muslim means thinking that everyone should become Muslim. To be Christian means believing that Christianity is the only way. Jews believe they were directly given a covenant by god himself giving them all of Israel. You can disagree, fine, but stating the facts of what your religion says, and especially believing in what the religion says is not bigotry.
But it’s part and parcel in my view of the decline of discourse in America that stating something as true that other people don’t want to be true is now seen as bigotry or hate or similar. It’s something that makes me fear for the future because we’ve completely lost ideas like truth, rationality, and honesty in favor of whispering comforting falsehoods. No society can last long when everyone is offended by truth.
More options
Context Copy link
Ironically Ilhan Omar chimed in on this to support the pro-life activist.
While Omar might not be an anti-Semite, I find that you'll correctly guess many of her positions if you model her as anti-Semite. In this case, I suppose you could arrive at the same guess by modeling her as someone who will maximally antagonize Republican Congressmen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a little bit surprised that Ilhan Omar came to Marbach's defense.
Optimistically, I'd like to think she actually believes that stuff about freedom of religion.
Cynically, I suspect she is just anticipating a fight over what her religion believes about LGBT folks.
Even more cynically, I wonder if she just saw an opportunity to slag a Republican Jew.
But I am often surprised that people are surprised that yes, orthodox Christians do in fact believe you (yes, you) are going to go to hell if you do not accept Jesus Christ. Yes, that means they literally believe every last atheist and Muslim and Jew and pagan and Hindu and Buddhist is going to burn in hell forever. (And a lot of the Protestant denominations include Catholics, Mormons, and JWs in that bucket.)
It's almost as amusing as watching liberals in Virginia discover recently that mainstream Muslims are mostly not, in fact, "queer-friendly."
Publically stating such things is an applause light often meant to express contempt or condescension towards people of other religions, even when rationalists ignore that and treat such claims as logical propositions. It's like going on record in public saying that your opponent's children are ugly and his toupee looks fake. The fact that you actually believe these things is not why you said it.
Or to show devotion, even in the face of popular dislike of a tenet of your religion. Christianity as a faith might have some experience with this.
If you continually allow people to chip away at inconvenient elements of the faith you won't have a faith, or the benefits you believe it provides.
At a certain point, folding on "unkind" doctrine is just folding.
Any nontrivial attack on your ideological opponents would be disliked by them. If your opponents are numerous enough, that becomes popular dislike. You're writing a blank check to excuse all verbal attacks on your outgroup.
Christianity as a faith has attacked nonbelievers for an extremely long time, said attacks being only the start of more concrete bad things that it's done to nonbelievers. What's changed is that nonbelievers are no longer so weak that they have to just sit there and take it.
How is it an attack though? I’ve made strong statements of belief about all kinds of things. Those are not attacks on people who disagree, they’re statements of my beliefs. I don’t think aliens have visited earth. That doesn’t mean that I think anyone who disagrees is lesser in any form, just that I don’t believe aliens have come to earth. Mere statement of my beliefs isn’t an attack.
The difference is that the Christians believe misery awaits non-believers I guess. Although 'Aliens exist, and if you don't believe in them they are gonna torture the shit out of you next time they visit' doesn't seem like an attack either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"People say things they actually believe in order to garner approval from fellow believers." Yes, that sounds like an accurate description of a thing that happens.
Except that the "approval" part is only half of it.
In the real world, proclaiming that nonbelievers go to Hell is hostile to nonbelievers. Yes, they want other believers to approve of the hostility, but describing that as wanting to garner approval leaves out the important part.
Is it hostile? Non-believers don’t believe in hell. If they believed in hell then they would be believers. If a non-believer reads it then they would just see themselves going to fake belief place.
The sentiment is hostile. You don't need to believe Hell exists in order to understand that someone louldy proclaiming that you're going to go there probably doesn't like you very much.
You misunderstand the (guessing evangelical) Christian mindset. They think by telling you that you’re going to hell you will realize this and change your mind, accept Jesus, and go to heaven. Telling people they are going to hell is to cross streams a mitzvah.
Well, technically this may be true (and that's the cover), but c'mon, most of us know that "I'll pray for you" is kind of like "Bless your heart" (sounds nice, but it's Southern for "Fuck you"). Loudly and publicly proclaiming that non-Christians are going to go to hell is usually not done out of sincere concern for their eternal well-being. (Fred Phelps doesn't actually believe that screaming "God hates fags!" will save the souls of the people he's screaming at, even if he claims that's his goal.)
The problem is that this really is a core belief of many Christians, so conversely, demanding that they just never talk about it or else they are being "hostile" is basically demanding they shut up because their beliefs offend you.
Usually there is a sort of understood public peace treaty where we all know Christians think the rest of us are going to hell, but they should refrain from preaching that where it's unwelcome. However, some Christians really do feel called upon to preach where they are unwelcome, so Lizzie Marbach was kind of like the street preacher annoying everyone by standing on the corner and shouting things that are supposed to stay in church.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I tell someone shooting heroin that it's killing them and they need to stop, they can decide that actually I just hate them, and if they insist on doing so I certainly can't stop them. At a scale of the entire society, they're going to find no shortage of people who actually do hate heroin-shooters to conflate me with. That doesn't make their logic any less garbage.
Your insistence that Christians trying to warn non-believers away from Hell amounts to hatred and hostility seems nonsensical. Christians positing the existence of Hell neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket, any more than your claiming our God and Heaven does not exist. To the extent that Christianity has been used to implement oppressive authoritarian norms in the past, so has literally every other ideology that has ever existed; where Christianity stands out is the number of states where it has played a significant role in allowing actual liberty, something secular humanism has a considerably worse record on.
You're free to despise Christians if that's your thing. Not liking people is legal. You're likewise free to coordinate meanness against them for believing things you disapprove of, since no system of law or custom will ever prevent such behavior. Just be clear-headed about the likely consequences of forcing several dozen million people to choose between peaceful coexistence or their faith.
There are certainly circumstances where someone telling people this would be mainly motivated by contempt of heroin users, and where it would be correct to infer hostility. Furthermore, society has norms of religious tolerance that it does not have around heroin tolerance, and by proclaiming that your outgroup is going to suffer, you are violating norms that you are not for heroin users.
I'm pretty sure you're quoting Jefferson out of context here.
Also, notice that actually saying "I hate you and you should die" neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. By your reasoning not only is loudly talking about your outgroup's suffering not hostile, literal direct hatred isn't hostile either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who says they don’t like you? That person would likely help you get baptized in a second.
That's help combined with condescension. Condescension is a type of hostility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and? Obviously people often hold beliefs they know would be rude to state publicly, which leads to these sorts of fracases where someone does state it in a public venue.
"Christian expresses a fundamental tenet of most Christian denominations, non-Christians get offended" is a nothing story except for the personalities involved.
And there's a reason why influential people being rude gets in the news.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Silly religious people don't realize that hell only exists for those who make bad acausal trades with future AI Gods.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems like the oldest justification for "believing that stuff" about freedom of religion.
I keep saying that one of the results of progressives dominating academia is that there is now a massive Hobbes/Leviathan shaped hole in the discourse and I think that one of the ways that hole manifests is in a lack of understanding of just how cynical the views of Smith and Madison were in comparison to modern theorists.
The whole silly blue v red pill discussion this last week also showed how many people in the online rat adjacent places lack the cynical view of enlightened self interest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jews are interesting for Christianity. It isn’t crystal clear their afterlife status.
Isn't crystal clear to whom? It seams clear to Paul.
Yeah, he wouldn't have said, "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh," if he didn't think the Jews were on the road to hell.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Heya, just a reply from a passing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormons) who occasionally lurks here.
So... While that is true for us that we believe you need to believe in Christ, where we belive unbelievers is a little more complicated than that. So I just thought I'd clarify that a bit, if that's okay.
Basically, what we believe is that after you die, you first go to one of two temporary places (which is what traditional Christians would call heaven or hell). However, we believe the gospel is preached to those in prison, and to those who never had the oppurtunity to receive it. So it is possible for another person to die, be presented the gospel whole dead, and to embrace it whole heartedly, and therefore not go to hell (in the sense of anguish and pain). There will be many many good who this applies to. So yeah, you have to accept Jesus Christ, but you don't just get a free ticket to hell for not knowing, if that makes sense. Everyone gets that choice and oppurtunity. That's why we do proxy ordinances (like baptism for the dead).
Sometime later, we believe we will be judged by God, and then go to several other places. And even for people who are not good people, they still get to go to a place which is quite wonderful, just not as wonderful as those who chose to be near God. So that's not super hellish (as in the traditional Christian beliefs in hell) at least in my opinion :).
Anyways, you may have already known all this stuff, or not, but I figured it would be good to post.
I knew that, but actually what I meant by "include Catholics, Mormons, and JWs in that bucket" is that many Protestant denominations believe that Mormons (and Catholics, etc.) are not Christian and will go to hell. Which I'm sure you know.
As for the idea that those who never had the opportunity to hear the Word can get a second chance, that's also not unique to the LDS.
I think basically there are a vast number of Christians who know perfectly well what the official word of their religion says (don't accept Christ, go to hell, do not pass purgatory) but they're really uncomfortable (as they should be) with the idea that millions of good and sincere people, including their friends and family, will burn in hell forever because they made a wrong choice. So they construct all these elaborate exceptions and Get Out Of Hell passes to convince themselves the system is just.
Fail on my part. That's what I get for not double checking what I read XD.
And yeah, I figured there was probably some others who viewed it that way, though I wasn't sure which denominations and what the specifics are. There is a lot of denominations out there, and I probably just haven't had the right conversations yet :). I do know that certain Muslim groups belive it is possible to rise from 'hell' to a neutral place, and the neutral place to heaven... although I'm not sure which group in particular it was.
Yeah I wouldn't be suprised if that's the case. It's a bit of a moral dilemna there. I'm guessing most just imagine that God is just and merciful... so he'll have mercy and give them a chance to believe. But not sue on that count. I'll have to ask some of my friends. :)
More options
Context Copy link
The problem of hell is a classic theological issue. I do like the idea that hell is temporary. In short, despite being raised Protestant catholic ideas really appea to me
Hell in Catholicism is not temporary. I think you're thinking of purgatory, which is where the saved do penance for minor sins until they're expiated.
Some Catholic theologians came up with the concept of the empty hell.
And they are considered heretical. Heaven and hell are permanent destinations; purgatory is a temporary stopover on the way to heaven for people who are saved, but not by enough to go straight to heaven.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ilhan Omar actually does seem to genuinely care about religious liberty even if she doesn’t always see eye to eye with conservative Christians.
More options
Context Copy link
AFAIK Catholics do not believe Jews go to hell, they are Chosen.
“Participants in God’s salvation” in an “unfathomable divine mystery” is not a clear assertion that Jews are saved ceteris paribus. It is consciously ambiguous language. The relevant text is Romans 11: https://biblehub.com/esv/romans/11.htm
This indicates that the true remnant of Israel were the Jews who accepted Christ, as well as the gentiles grafted in:
The above mentions that unbelieving Jews are “broken branches” which “God does not spare”. Next we read that some of the natural branches will be grafted in again,
Lastly, we have this pretty ambiguous passage, which any side can use for their argument I suppose,
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not a Catholic, but my understanding of Catholic theology on the subject of whether Jews and other non-Catholics can go to heaven is: "It's complicated." Basically, being a Catholic is the only sure way; if you're not a Catholic, theoretically there are a bunch of other criteria you have to meet which would make you eligible for heaven, but it's almost impossible to meet them without the guidance of the Church. Of course this leaves plenty of waffle room for more liberal-minded Catholics to say "Of course Jews can go to heaven."
Contrary to what you see on TV, though, pretty much no Christian denomination actually believes that being a "good person" (or a true believer in whatever your religion happens to be) is sufficient.
As a practicing catholic yes, this accurately summarizes the mainstream/official Catholic teaching on the subject however something missing is that observant Jews (as distinct from secular individuals of Jewish decent) are viewed a special case subject to their own distinct covenant. Whether they are saved is a matter for debate but also not up to us because God already made that call.
More options
Context Copy link
The waffle room that exists is in terms of consent. You only go to hell if you are informed and have the opportunity to accept Christ but refuse to do so. So a more liberal-minded Catholic has waffle room to say that a boy with a good heart who grows up in an Islamic society and gets no real "opportunity" to accept Christ is not doomed to hell.
The Catholic stance on the Jews is completely different. It's saying that they get salvation even if they knowingly reject Christ, but the justification is "unfathomable mystery" rather than trying to apply the other waffle room to all Jews. They are just special, so they get to go to heaven even if they reject Christ, and yes it's a complete contradiction with the Church but that's your mind on Yahweh.
Yes, but they all pretty much define "opportunity" according to what they are personally most comfortable with. I've heard Christians express it the way you did, and I've heard Christians claim that if you've ever so much as heard the name "Jesus Christ," you have now heard the Word and have no excuse.
Again, there are protestant denominations that also believe this. Both Catholics and Protestants do consider Jews different from other non-Christians religions. Just as Muslims recognize Jews and Christians as fellow "People of the Book." The cause is the obvious historical relationship. It's not some sneaky Jewish tribal strategy to insert themselves even into their rivals' theology. Of course it is not rational, but one of the few things you and I probably agree on is that religion in general is not rational.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mainstream Christians of any description do not like to talk about the salvation of Jews, but the bounds of catholic doctrine on the subject isn’t notably different from other denominations despite what liberal catholic apologists would like to pretend.
It is notably different, there is no salvation for those to deny Jesus according to the church, except for the Jews, and the reason for that is a "mystery." It's not really a mystery, though.
It would be a theological problem if God reneged on His old covenant, even if He introduced a new one.
The Catholic position is that the only way through heaven is through Christ, Jesus himself said so quite directly- "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". There is no other path. That is, except when it comes to being Jewish, that is apparently the second path. But the Catholics still don't say there are two paths, they only say there is one path, through Christ, and then say that a separate rule for Jews is just a mystery we cannot comprehend.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" is John 14:6. It's not a Catholic doctrine; it's straight from the Bible. Catholics and Protestants have slightly different takes on the verse, but it's the core basis for what is known as the doctrine of Exclusive Salvation. Some Protestants believe in exclusive salvation, some don't, and Catholics kinda sorta do with asterisks. (Said asterisks not applying solely to Jews.) So no, what you are saying is flatly inaccurate. The sarcastic "just a mystery we cannot comprehend" (wink wink nudge nudge somethingsomething Jews) appears to me to be more intentional than an inability to grasp theological nuances and contradictions.
Quoting scripture is a very Protestant way of thinking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is not notably different. You hear very similar language from many Protestant denominations. (Many other Protestant denominations also say very clearly that Jews will go to hell - as have many Catholic theologians historically.) There isn't some special carve-out here somehow engineered by the Elders of Zion.
I meant Jews are regarded differently than the other groups you mentioned, I am aware that is the case across denominations, particularly among evangelicals.
There is a special carve-out, absolutely. And it was engineered by the Elders of Zion, AKA the Prophets of the bible who declared Jews to be God's Chosen people and then convinced the Gentiles to accept that proposition as part of their own religion. So it leads to these contradictions like, Jews knowingly reject Christ but they still go to heaven, obviously Christianity is going to digest that contradiction just fine because the religion itself is basically worshipping the Jews and their tribal god.
Your understanding of the history of Judaism and Christianity seems pretty lacking. Christianity began as a Jewish splinter sect. The "Elders of Zion" didn't "convince" the Gentiles to accept anything; the beliefs of early Christians were obviously informed by the fact that initially they considered themselves Jews who followed the promised Messiah. Since then, the situation has become vastly more complicated, with two thousand years of history and schisms and factions and subfactions, some still holding up Jews as "God's Chosen People" and some condemning them to hell for being Christ-killers.
I know you try to fit your ZOG narrative to everything, but it does not actually fit everything.
Saint Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was a Jewish Pharisee. And of course Jesus was a Jewish teacher. So according to the Church's own history, the messiah and apostle to the gentiles were indeed "Elders of Zion": a Pharisee and the King of the Jews. They did convince the gentiles to accept the proposition that the only real god is the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, and that all who reject him suffer eternal torture, and that he chose Jews as his Chosen People and made his son born of the Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is bizarre just from the perspective of politicking. You’re a politician, in Ohio, how do you not know enough about Christians to expect this kind of response? I’m reading and apparently there was another politician in Ohio who also called on her to delete the tweet, Casey Weinstein, but he then deleted his tweet. This is just basic religion literacy. Christians as part of their religion are obliged to “confess the name of Jesus”, this is commanded of them and it’s a minor plot point during the Passion. This should be tolerated in the public sphere just as everyone should tolerate Jews professing a chosen status and Muslims calling Muhammad a prophet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link