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 -
They might not, but He does. They just decided to highlight the foot washing because they personally thought it was most valuable to highlight. Even if you think it didn't deserve to be highlighted, doesn't mean it was theologically incorrect.
There are more accounts of casting out of demons that appear that appear in four books. Foot washing only appears in one. From the response of the disciples it seems like the first time.
My thoughts are that 'Big Eva' frequently presents an unbalanced view of Jesus. It's all love and footwasing, where this is only half the story. 'As yourselves', is frequently missing from 'Love your Neighbor'
Yes, help, be kind, love strangers / traveller's. Also if they're sacrificing children to Molech they should be stoned to death.
If we are following the teachings of Jesus then we won't be stoning anyone to death.
Does Jesus prohibit stoning as a punishment?
John 8
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Jesus persuades a group against stoning an adultress.
Not really a prohibition against all stoning or stoning Molech worshipping child sacrificers.
The New Testament lacks the specificity to address Jesus's particular views regarding death by torture for the followers Moloc.
But it seems difficult to interpret John 8 as Jesus advocating stoning. And the only other mention of stoning in the New Testament is very negative against the stoners and sympathetic to their victim who is being stoned. It's quite a contrarian reading of the Bible to think that the followers of Jesus should be stoning people.
Edit: I scrolled through your post history wondering if you were one of the local Indian posters or something. Someone who is honestly ignorant about Christianity. But no, you only lived in America and Europe and you go (or went?) to church some amount. Why are you acting unclear regarding Jesus's advocacy about stoning people to death? This isn't some obscure point. And what church do you go to where people play the game: "Jesus never said we couldn't do this." This is Pharisees-level attempted rules lawyering.
Not simply worshipers of Molech, they need to be child sacrificers.
I don't think I've said Jesus advocates stoning in John 8. Only that he persuades the crowd not to stone the adulteresses. I don't read this as being negative against the crowd. He doesn't say she doesn't deserve to be stoned, or that the law as proscribed is invalid or unjust. Might Jesus instruction to the crowd have inspired mercy? Which other account of stoning as punishment is negative against the stoners?
The Lord (Word of God) clearly tells Moses that the ancient Israelites should stone child sacrificing Molech worshipers and not doing so will set them apart from God in Lev 20:2. Jesus must be on board with this at the time he says it to Moses.
There are examples in the New Testament where Jesus reframes earlier teachings on adultery, food prohibitions, and the sabbath. I don't find any teachings that murderers shouldn't be punished as proscribed by law. Jesus seems to have something worse than drowning in the sea with a millstone around the neck in mind in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I don't find a prohibition against capital punishment in general.
I don't think I've said that Jesus advocates for stoning, nor do I think he prohibits it where proscribed by the law. Nor do I find this inconsistent with the teaching to love your neighbor as yourself.
This is literally the Pharisees in John 8:5. You are now quoting the Pharisees and advocating their view in plain opposition to Jesus.
Which I guess is fine in some non-Christian sense. But both Christians and modern Jews don't follow these rules. And Christians can point to Jesus dunking on the people who tried to "gotcha" him with the laws of Moses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So what crimes do you think deserve the death penalty? Just child sacrifice or anything else?
Me personally?
Murder, sex crimes against children, treason.
Many of the capital crimes in the Old Testament wouldn't move me today to advocate for stoning, burning or slaying.
Those seem unrelated to the He Gets Me ads
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
I can get the argument that 'Big Eva' didn't spend their money the best way because they presented an unbalanced view of Jesus. But I don't see the argument that anything they said about Jesus was actually false.
When does Jesus ever endorse stoning anyone to death?
Jesus the Word of God?
That's the old testament. I meant Jesus' updated instructions.
The new testament is favorable towards capital punishment. "He who sheds the blood of man..."
That's from the old testament, but from a brief study online seems to still be applicable because it was a general law, not an Israelite law, and Jesus didn't ever say otherwise on the topic. But it's about specifically capital punishment as a punishment for murder, not for being gay or a shop lifter or whatever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Does Jesus say not to stone child sacrificing Molech worshipers?
He speaks on divorce and food prohibitions in the new testament, he persuades a crowd not to stone an adultress, but not via a prohibition on stoning. He specifically says he's not come to abolish the law or the prophets.
Jesus seemed to push a lot more emphasis on forgiveness, redemption, and loving thy neighbor than on stoning to me. If someone literally sacrifices their children to Molech, than yeah probably they should face capital punishment, but that's really more of a legal matter than a religious matter anyway. Jesus isn't proscribing death by stoning for general degeneracy.
That’s a modern and secular sentiment that has no place in sharia, er, Christian Nationalism.
More options
Context Copy link
Certainly the tenor of his ministry is repentance, forgiveness, redemption and loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God. He specifically condemnes hypocrisy, pride and commercialization of a sacred space by dishonest merchants.
Legal and religious matters are seperate now. This has not always been the case.
Jesus is not proscribing stoning for general degeneracy. As the Word of God he was specific.
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
My understanding is that Jesus washed the feet of the apostles (his best friends) to create the priesthood. There are no accounts of him washing anyone else's feet. There's no general call for Christians to wash the feet of randos.
No, but the symbolism in doing so was that he, literally God himself, was putting himself in a subservient position to those below him.
More options
Context Copy link
He might not have literally washed the feet of the underclass, but he did hang out with and help prostitutes, lepers, all sorts of undesirables of the society.
More options
Context Copy link
From the disciples reaction it seems like the first time.
If Jesus can wash his disciples feet, his disciples can wash the feet of the homeless and desperate.
Once? The disciples reaction points to this being the first time. Casting out demons might be more helpful to the cohort you suggest.
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