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 -
The Church has existed for 2000 years. Can you name anything else that has 'bumbled along, with zero internal consistency' for so many 'centuries and centuries'?
Perhaps a better expression of my feeling is that Catholic doctrine, insofar as I understand it, explicitly promotes both Scripture and Tradition as (equal-ish) sources of doctrine... but simultaneously claims authority to make New Changes, due to pedigree/authority. Many Protestants view Sola Scriptura as the best source of doctrine, with perhaps a little history as helpful context, though others take a full "we figure it out with scholarship" approach and basically toss all of it out as unerring sources of doctrine. LDS theology by contrast at least has a nice hierarchy where modern clarifications/additions explicitly take precedence, so there really isn't the same kind of core conflict. That's why, at least to me, the Catholic attempt to split the difference, where some New Changes are OK to make and change Scripture and/or Tradition, but not too many, seems contradictory, and I think Catholic theological history reflects that inconsistency. It's possible I've misunderstood this point or been too uncharitable, of course, but that's my impression. How can a Catholic distinguish between a Tradition that's OK to change, and one that isn't? (Also, maybe doctrinal is the wrong word?)
Everyone always forgets the Orthodox, just because they are more spiritual/mystic and far far away …
The Orthodox also hold to both scripture and tradition (and recognize ecclesiastical (not theological) supremacy of the Pope if the schism is mended), so this points to this being the correct position instead of sola scriptura.
The Mormon hierarchy being effective(?) and therefore true is a novel point, but on an emotional level I prefer religion being a bit shrouded in mystery and vague and having thousands of years of wobbly-wobbly history with burning of incense, while Mormonism and Joseph Smith is too modern-american-conman-heretical-cult-constructed for my liking.
The Eastern and Western wings of the Church may disagree profoundly on many matters, but I think we both agree about a guy who said God is an astronaut 😁
As a band, though, they're excellent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you believe:
We (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) agree on points 1 and 2 but not 3. Heaven is instead a physical place that exists in our universe. Some places are physically closer to it, others physically farther. It's imperceptible to us due to some fundamental characteristics of divine matter (which has interesting implications for dark matter, which we cannot detect except through its influence on gravity) but definitely exists in our universe.
I get that it's seen as heretical to believe God has a physical body and that all things spiritual are physical too. But please don't boil it down to "God is an astronaut," which greatly demeans him in my eyes. I would never call your idea of God a Planeswalker just because you believe he travels between dimensions.
I dont think its really that defined. If you wanted to make it into a scientific model, this propably fits the typical opinions pretty well, but Im not sure you need to. As an analogy, what would happen if roadrunner and coyote were to run into the tunnel holding hands? AFAIC, once youre in the realm of basically-magic already, its fine to say NULL.
Also Im pretty sure the mormon astronaut thing did involve other planets at one point.
I'm not denying that our God can be characterized as an astronaut. He probably doesn't travel through space--some form of instant travel seems more likely--but he's been to space and other planets at some point, sure. I'd just prefer to avoid those dismissive terms.
I realize you’re saying this because you find the comparison offensive, but this statement is pretty funny, outside of its context.
Yeah, I guess it is.
I don't really find the comparison offensive in a vacuum. Astronauts are cool. I've heard some Christians describe God as the ultimate scientist, one who invented the laws of physics according to his ultimate intelligence and created the beauty of our natural world out of his own limitless imagination. I love that comparison and don't really consider astronauts any worse than scientists.
It's more the attitude of "we true Christians agree a God who exists in space couldn't possibly be a real God, hahaha" that is somewhat annoying. Nbd though
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