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 posted this on a progressive Christian subreddit yesterday, only to have it removed a few hours later. Frankly, I don't know what I expected to gain from speaking my mind there, because aside from a few people who asked genuine questions, everyone else was annoyed. Probably should have just posted it here.
--
Title: Emotionally drained by politics
For some context, I consider myself to hold left-leaning Christian and political viewpoints. I have gone through a journey of faith that has led me to re-evaluate conservative teachings and doctrine, which I no longer support or believe in. One of the most important values for me is mutual respect. I react negatively towards people who don't actively listen and hear out people who's values and beliefs are different than theirs. To be clear, active listening isn't tantamount to listening to agree, but rather listening to understand. It appears to me that this kind of listening is severely lacking not only in Christian circles, but in much of society today. I also hold above all other Scripture, the Great Commandment, and believe with my whole heart that loving your neighbor as yourself means loving every neighbor.
It of course bothers me greatly when I see Donald Trump calling Kamala Harris "mentally unwell since birth" or Donald Trump and JD Vance proclaim as fact that Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH, are eating dogs. But it also bothers me when I see pro-Palestinian activists circulating posters depicting a university president with devil horns and missiles (https://www.courant.com/2024/09/19/uconn-leaders-refuse-to-meet-with-pro-palestinian-protest-group-following-grotesque-antisemetic-imagery-depicting-university-president/), or those times when both Marjorie Taylor Green and Jasmine Crockett go back and forth taking personal jabs at each other, or even something like Tim Walz telling JD Vance to "get off the couch" and debate him. From my lived experience, acting in the manner that some of our politicians do is not fruitful and is not loving.
I recognize that the policies of the GOP are dangerous to minority groups in this country. I recognize that a Donald Trump presidency would threaten American democracy. But at the same time, I cannot help but feel like politics as a whole has become more about being right instead of making our country better. And part of making it better, I feel, is listening to not only people who hold the same values and beliefs, but also to people who don't. It appears to me that politicians are very quick to assume that all people who support the opposing party live in a vacuum, so they don't bother to hear them out. I have not seen a single Democrat or Republican candidate try to build bridges across the aisle in an effort to win over their vote. It seems like they're all cooped up in their respective echo chambers, only really caring about what it takes to get elected and nothing more.
I've actually decided not to vote at all this election. Respectfully, I am not looking to have my mind changed on this, as I've already heard and considered most of the usual arguments for why I should ("it's your civic duty" "Trump will win if you don't", "Vote the issues, not the person", etc). I live in a solidly blue state in New England. My congressperson has been in office for the past 15 years and has always won by a wide margin. Sure, there are my state and local offices, but I'm not convinced that anyone who's running would actually listen to the ideas that I have to make out state better. I think they're too busy catering to the interests of the party and wealthy donors.
I don't know, maybe what I'm seeking with this post is more understanding about my frustration than actual guidance. It's very hard for me to want to be invested in politics when it seems like all everyone wants to do is yell and scream at each other.
TL:DR This election season, due to all the personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric and lack of mutual respect, has left me very politically disillusioned to the point where I don't want to vote anymore. Any understand or gentle guidance is appreciated.
Are you looking for non-progressive opinions? If so I will share my thoughts.
Loving your neighbor means loving other Christians, and specifically precludes false Christians. ReligionForBreakfast explains this well in his recent “the most misunderstood parable of Jesus” analysis video. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Samaritans were considered co-religionists, and the textual evidence points to Samaritans being the “far case” of neighbor status. The Parable of the Samaritan defines who is a neighbor, and the further case of neighbor is a righteous co-religionist who isn’t totally aligned with your practices. God calls you to love your fellow Christians as yourself; and He calls you to love your brothers the most (those in your church, denomination, friends). While Christ does say to “love your enemies”, the Sermon on the Mount involves exaggeration to shock us into dispositional perfection: we do not actually cut off our hands when our hand leads to sin, or pluck out our eye when our eye leads to sin, and so the commands cannot be taken as literal practical rules.
It’s crucially important that we understand who are neighbors are. If you extend who you consider to be your neighbor beyond what God has established, you aren’t being “more good”, you are being bad. You are committing the worst sin, which is failing to love God with your mind and failing to obey his commandments. If you fail to obey Christ’s commandments then, according to John, you never knew him.
That video mentions Jews and even antisemitic tropes several times. It does not say that loving your neighbor means loving other Christians; Jews are not Christians.
In ReligionForBreakfast 17:20, the conclusion is that “the parable is about insiders and how things should work for insiders”. 17:28, “the Samaritan is being used as a limit concept”. In 17:42, that the Samaritan is the edge case to specify the broader concept of the people of Israel.
To understand how this applies to Christians requires Christian assumptions. These are difficult to succinctly explain to non-Christians but widely agreed upon in mainstream Christian traditions. The stories in the Gospel are for the edification of Christians, not Jews; the elements of the story involving temples and scribes and Pharisees are not stuck in the first century, but apply universally; Christians are the Chosen People, with those who do not accept Christ being cast aside. When Christ offers a teaching to his community it is accepted that this teaching is for his proclaimed community of followers, with the lessons applying today. In other words, the gospel lesson mentioning Samaritans apply to what the Samaritan represents for Christians today, and interpreting otherwise would be a serious misinterpretation (“beware of the teachings of the Pharisees”).
Okay, so you're telling me that a parable that is about Jews, mentions Jews, and whose analysis says that Christians have misinterpreted it because of antisemitism, is trying to say that Jews do not count as your neighbors for the purpose of loving your neighbor? I'm not even asking you about Samaritans or Pharisees.
(And even if that's what you think it means, that's not what the video you linked thinks it means.)
You’re not making the compelling critique that you think you are making. There are things you have to know first before you can understand the parable. (“This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘You will indeed hear but never understand’”).
A major plot of the New Testament is that the disbelieving Jews are severed from God and the gentiles are grafted in. But that takes place at the end, and this parable takes place earlier. So how do we understand it?
We can’t understand it as applying to modern Jews, because that is the religion of the Pharisees centered on the Talmud which denies Christ. The New Israel for Christians is about Christ. Indeed, no theologian has ever interpreted it as actually involving present-day Jews and Samaritans. Maybe some silly ones today, but no Church Father.
Christians read the parables as applying universally, involving moral lessons and symbols. Disagreeing with this fine if you don’t consider yourself Christian, but nonsensical if you’re trying to understand the readings under Christian assumptions (the purpose of the original OP). This is shown in Matthew 13.
We are left with a parable which applies today in form and symbol, but using context from the first century (before the Atonement and before Christ becomes the full-fledged mediator between God and Man). So who are today’s “Samaritans” which act righteously? Christ somehow answers the question “who is my neighbor” here, and we have to understand it as applying today. There must be a neighbor category; who fits the category?
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