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 copying this from other comments because you removed it. I don't think this was in bad faith at all, it's a very good question.
And yes. But the form of Christianity I believe in also holds that, while God forgives all things because of genuine repentance, he doesn't remove the natural consequences of sin, and he doesn't remove the requirement for intense, even painful, spiritual growth and purification after partaking in sin. In this sense, yes, some sins are worse than others, and more sins are worse than fewer sins.
The closest person to Lily in the Christian tradition is probably St. Mary of Egypt, who was a prostitute who often refused payment for her services because she just loved sex, and even went on a pilgrimage to try and bang pilgrims. According to the hagiography, she tried to enter a church and could not, and was struck with remorse, pledging to become an aescetic if God would forgive her. After receiving absolution, she fled into the desert and lived as a hermit.
I don't see it in your comment -- did this woman repent? Did she publicly say that she's ashamed of her actions and she believes God has given her grace to overcome them? Has she been baptized? If not, will she?
If yes, my response to her is the same as to Russell Brand: I trust in God to judge you spiritually, but to earn my temporal respect you must prove your amendment over a long period of time, and that starts with shutting up.
Stop trying to be a celebrity. Don't go on shows to talk about how great your conversion is and how much of a degenerate you were and how much of a good Christian you are now -- just stop. Go into the desert. Become an aescetic. For someone whose sins are so public and attention-seeking, repentance must inevitably involve privacy and humility. And that path may be painful, involving great sacrifice -- it may indeed include religious vows someday. But no one said the Christian life was easy, least of all the man nailed to the cross.
When St. Paul became a Christian, he did not immediately set out to preach to the world, but fled to Arabia for three years. If your goal is truly to make yourself right with God, and not to win the favor of men, you should treasure this opportunity as a pearl of great price. Christianity is not a get-out-of-consequences-free-card, but the Way that leads to life.
But if your goal is merely to resurrect your temporal reputation and not to resurrect your soul, then you will be numbered among the goats and there can be no redemption for you.
Are Christians morally obligated to forgive someone if God has forgiven them? Like, let's say this woman appears to convert to Christianity and repent meaningfully and by all appearances it seems 100% genuine. Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios? Would it be wrong of me to refuse to marry/date her because of her past?
For one thing, it's hard to know if God has forgiven them when all you've got is a public claim of religious conversion. But the second part is that there's nothing for you to forgive here: the sin was against herself, and against the men she involved in it, and against God, not against you.
But if someone has directly sinned against you and comes to you with deep remorse combined with restorative action, then the number of times you should forgive them is seventy times seven.
No, not at all.
Like I said, forgiveness is different from the natural consequences of your actions. If someone along these lines expresses genuine remorse and is part of, say, your local church community, while showing evidence of repentance (which involves actions as well as words), then you should treat them with the respect owed to someone in the community. That means not spreading gossip or being harsh or critical, it means loving them as you love yourself. (Some acts rise to the level of crimes, of course, and that's a different situation: Christian repentance doesn't erase the consequences of sin, like prison sentences.) But this is dependent upon true absolution and penitence, which in ancient Christianity could sometimes involve years of formal ostracization (i.e. temporary excommunication). This is a "be nice until you can coordinate meanness" situation. It's God, through the ordained ministry, that gets to make these decisions, not you or me.
But that doesn't mean you can't make a judgment about their behavior in terms of your temporal choices or choices that entangle you with them, like choosing not to marry them because you believe their particular inclinations might make them a poor spouse. You're under no obligation to marry anyone in particular, and choosing not to date/marry someone is not equivalent to social ostracization (one of my disagreements with trans activists). The natural consequence of poor sexual behavior is poor sexual prospects, and God doesn't remove those unless he has a particular plan for you -- which, of course, he might.
Christians are called to be innocent as doves but wise as serpents, to forgive and have compassion but also to be judicious and not naive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link