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 dont think the Father is non-physical because its "better". I think its a continuation of jewish belief, and continues to draw some justification from the (reduced) image prohibition.
I wonder what you think of the Real Presence and relics? They seem in a similar spirit as physical resurrection to me.
Relics I pretty much think of as superstition. I'm not against the idea of holy objects or corpses, but relics imo verge into idol worship, where they seem to have power of their own. Even if Stephen was blessed for his faith, I'm not sure Stephen's fibula was blessed in the same way, and I especially don't think I'll be blessed for revering his fibula or carrying it around. It seems like a distraction pulling one away from Christ.
I've never really understood the Real Presence. It sounds like it means the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body in some sense, but in what sense? Clearly they don't actually physically become flesh and blood at any point--we would know if they did. I'm also sure that people have done unsavory things to bread and wine post-blessing, and while that may be symbolically violating Jesus I'm confident he's not actually harmed, so common sense tells me that the Communion isn't literally part of his body.
The physical resurrection has a strong biblical foundation. I'd argue Christ made a concerted effort to teach his apostles specifically that the resurrection was both real and physical. As I said elsewhere:
I guess you could see this as a "spiritual" resurrection, but then, what's the difference between a resurrected spirit body capable of eating food and otherwise interacting directly with matter, and a physical body? And why does the stipulation that the resurrection is non-physical matter so much, if these bodies possess important physical characteristics?
To be clear, Im in favour of all three points. I dont want to say agree, since Im an atheist and that would make it even weirder than it already is, but Im anti-gnostic.
Certainly some people do that. I think personally seeing and maybe interacting with a semi-important piece of Gods history can have a big impact on someone. Its not separate in the sense that its an inevitable part of whatever happened to and with it in the first place. Visiting the holy land is similar, and propably seems less idolatrous.
Is a sacrificial animal harmed by what you do to its flesh after the sacrifice? And yet that is clearly its body that youre eating. I dont think theres anything contradictory about it being both Jesus flesh and not part of his current living body. And since its apparently fine that heaven is made from divine matter thats invisible, I dont think the lack of apparent changes is a problem either.
Sure, that's fair. I guess I just get an idolatrous vibe from it, but there's nothing objectively wrong per se.
My source on this is solely D&C 131:7-8
So I need to correct myself--actually heaven should not be invisible at all, at least not for that reason. It's just spirit matter that's imperceptible, not perfected normal matter.
Thanks, this makes a lot more sense to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link