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 -
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.
My understanding of WBC theology is not particularly in depth, but I don’t think they believe that changing hearts is possible- God has already enlightened the very, very few elect, and some crazy people with terrible signs is merely His implement to bring the- again, vanishingly small- number of the saved to be more pleasing to God.
More options
Context Copy link
I grew up around evangelicals. I can tell you they are in earnest. They believe non Christians are going to hell and if they can just somehow reach them, then they can save the mortal soul.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Do you think the first amendment should be abolished?
More options
Context Copy link
There is no norm that believing in hell is an attack on your outgroup. Religious tolerance emerged from people who universally believed that their opposites were going to suffer, because the core insight is that my beliefs about the afterlife don't make much difference to you in this life. Likewise, it would be idiotic for me to claim that your insistence that my God doesn't exist harms me. If you are worried about suffering in the afterlife, you are free to do something about that. If you are not, you don't have to. That's the deal, and you don't get to alter it.
I'm pretty sure I'm applying a solid principle to a more general context where it nonetheless applies.
If you hate me and want me to die, that has direct implications in this life, and while it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it has a strong correlation to both happening shortly.
"Loudly talking about your outgroup's suffering" is an interesting way to phrase it. It covers both "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but through me", and "GOD HATES FAGS". I readily concede that people can use the concept of hell to communicate hatred. That doesn't make the concept of Hell itself hateful, and the distinction is both necessary and useful if you want to maintain a pluralistic society. Any moral or ethical claim at all can be labeled hatred under your framework, and then used to exclude the disfavored from the public square. This is a bad thing to do for a lot of reasons, but doing it for a very large portion of society who already have a lot of bones to pick with the increasingly unstable social compact is just burning social cohesion for the fun of it. We Christians put up with all sorts of social bullshit already. Maybe you Atheists can try putting up with some bullshit as well.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
This just seems like Christian hating to me.
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
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.
Indeed, that's why citing a Bible verse as "Catholic doctrine" shows either a serious misunderstanding of how Catholicism (vs. Protestantism) works, or someone who's just being obtuse.
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
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.
Paul claims to be a Pharisee, I tend to doubt it because what he actually wrote is wildly different from what the Tanak actually says. There’s really no precedent in the Hebrew Bible for a dying rising god, human sacrifice for sins, or ritual cannibalism. He also gets very basic things wrong. The Passover lamb has nothing to do with a sin offering.
The other thing odd about Paul’s claims is that he’s claiming to have been taught by one of the most famous Rabbis of the era, Gamaliel. This is a really wild claim to make. It would be like some random guy claiming to have learned physics at the feet of Einstein, yet not understand very basic first year physics. The two don’t fit together.
More options
Context Copy link
Like @Amadan says this is not a new take, if anything it is one of the oldest of takes in Christendom and suddenly a bunch of your other posts are making a lot more sense. You were raised and/or educated by Jews weren't you? that's why you've got such a victimhood complex isn't it?
That the rise Christianity was all part of the Pharisee's plan is a lie that a lot of status conscious Jews tell themselves precisely because the alternative is just too terrifying to contemplate.
More options
Context Copy link
"Christianity is a Jew religion" is not a new take, I know it's very popular with the neo-Nazi movement, and you're still ignoring the 2000 years of history since. Note that I am neither Christian nor Jewish; I'm just pointing out that you're crafting a narrative to fit your ideology about Da Joos and their sneaky cultural infiltration that ignores a lot of history and what is actually believed by Christians and Jews today.
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
More options
Context Copy link