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 -
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 spirit matter (which has interesting implications for dark matter, which we cannot detect except through its influence on gravity) but definitely exists in our universe. (EDIT: this last sentence is not correct--heaven e.g. God's dwelling place is not purely spiritual, and thus not imperceptible, at least not for that reason)
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.
This is also a caricature of the Orthodox view on God. That being said, the Orthodox have little problem connecting the spiritual and the physical.
My admittedly limited understanding is that Mormonism literally believes in God the Father having a basically human physical body though...
The only part of what I said that I can see as a caricature is calling heaven a "dimension". Which, I mean, it is, right? You can say something like "the real heaven is way holier and more profound than the crass connotations of the word 'dimension'" but fundamentally it does match the definition.
Were you talking about the "all things spiritual are physical too"? I wasn't trying to caricature Orthodox beliefs there--that's an LDS belief. We essentially believe that nothing is not made of matter. Spirits are made of spirit matter which may well be composed of spirit atoms. There's not necessarily a fundamental difference between spirit matter and regular matter either.
Yes we believe God the Father has a perfected human physical body. The exact details, like whether he has blood, or is made of atoms, are unknown, but you have it right.
My impression is that most Christian sects find the physical fundamentally distasteful. Jesus' current physical body is de-emphasized. The final resurrection is de-emphasized--most people sort of see heaven as a place we go when we die, and the resurrection as an afterthought. Heaven is seen as a place wholly empty of physical matter, except perhaps for Jesus' body, which is the only thing in the entire realm with a physical form. God the Father having a physical body is seen as worse or inferior somehow than him not having a body.
We see this aversion to physical matter as an artifact of Gnosticism which made its way into the Catholic church over the centuries.
This leads to much deeper theological differences--like ancient Jews, we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. We don't believe God can violate physical laws--though the true laws of physics may be quite a bit different/deeper than what humanity has discovered so far. We don't believe in a God "by definition"--God doesn't need to be the Greatest Conceivable Thing in order to be God. (He may well be, but it's not necessary).
Does the Orthodox church not have this attitude towards the physical?
This is a great overview of Orthodox belief on heaven: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/the-truth-about-heaven-and-hell/
In general, the Orthodox are much less focused on 'figuring things out' so to speak in a material way. We are more comfortable with divine mystery. It's hard to put into words exactly, but from what you describe of Mormon doctrine I think a lot of Orthodox would see these things almost as distractions, needless confusion arising from trying to be right in an intellectual sense.
That being said I'm new to Orthodoxy myself so please take all of this with a grain of salt!
That makes sense. The beliefs I've described are very rarely addressed anywhere in the church for the same reason--they're fundamentally meaningless compared to the core doctrine of Christ.
I've got to say though, this isn't off to a great start. If heaven and hell are not physical places, where is Jesus' physical body? Does it cease to exist when he goes to heaven, and then he puts it back on when he visits us? Or are they purely metaphorical/spiritual places except where Jesus is concerned? And where will our physical bodies be when we are resurrected?
I ask because I think Jesus made a concerted effort to convince the apostles of the resurrection. It was important for us to learn, not just that Christ ascended to the right hand of God (which could be true in a purely spiritual/metaphorical/non-physical sense), but that his body came back to life, and even possessed some of the same functions as mortal bodies, such as being capable of eating food. He was really trying to prove, not just that death is not the end, but that the resurrection specifically is a real thing.
The Orthodox still believe in the bodily ressurection. I think the standard claim would be that Christ's body and the physicality of it is a Holy Mystery, and that we don't necessarily need to know.
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