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 -
That would be a pretty anodyne statement in Christian society. Pilate is not considered a positive figure precisely because he was derelict in his duty and put Jesus to death.
The idea that it was Pilate's job to follow "due process" and that he was "derelict in his duty" is delightfully ahistorical. The laws which Pilate followed were the laws of Rome. Roman law was not very concerned with the rights of non-citizens, their brothels and salt mines were full of slaves. And Jesus was very much not a Roman citizen. As a military governor, the job ob Pontius Pilate, as far as the Senate was concerned, was to keep the peace and facilitate the extraction of wealth. How he did this was totally up to him. If one day he woke up and decided to drown a tenths of the infants in Jerusalem in boiling pig fat, Rome would only object to that as far as it lead to instability.
The fact that he even personally bothered to preside over the case is more a concession to the political touchiness of the subject than any due process. Quite frankly, the local elites were really pissed at Jesus because he had interfered with their religion by causing a ruckus with the money-changers (which ultimately threatened their business model). And Pilate decided that it would be in Rome's best interests to placate them by putting Jesus to death. Given that the followers of Jesus did not rise up in rebellion, it is hard to argue that he was wrong with his decision. (A Gibbonite would blame the fall of Rome on Christianity, but Pilate could not possibly have foreseen that.)
Quite frankly, by messing with religious institutions, Jesus was kind of asking for it, either intentionally or in a FAFO way. Most places and times did not have strong freedom of speech norms, and Jesus would have fared little better if he had criticized dominant religious practices in pretty much any culture. If he had tried his little stunt in front of the temple of Athena or Saturn or Odin or a medieval cathedral or in early Boston or in front of a mosque in contemporary Tehran or Riyadh or in front of some Buddhist temple in Myanmar, he would have fared little better. Sure, in today's Western world, he might have gotten away with just a night in a prison cell and a fine (or no penalty at all if he had opted to practice his free speech by just demonstrating with a sign "God hates money-changers"), but of all the atrocities committed in the name of Rome, the killing of Jesus likely does not even make the top million.
If we ask what most defines the bad governor the singular example is "He has an innocent man put to death." Whatever the truth of Pilate's reasoning, he was in dereliction of his greater duty to good governance. You call to cold practicality. Kill the innocent rebel, end the movement, prevent instability and possibly save many lives. Those bad but "necessary" decisions don't come from nothing, rather they come as the long consequences of earlier bad decisions and failures. How many seemed necessary at the time?
There is also a nice irony to preventing instability. Jesus, who held tremendous draw, offended the elders. They wanted him killed and they were appeased. Bar Kokhba also had draw; thus went Judea.
More options
Context Copy link
Good points, but it bears pointing out that the Gospels record that Pilate repeatedly said "this man has done no wrong" and that ultimately he declared "his blood isn't on my head, it's on yours". So, our primary sources tell us that he knew damn well that it was a miscarriage of justice and that it was wrong to carry that out (otherwise he wouldn't have disclaimed the guilt). I think it's pretty fair to call that derelict of his duty, since it's apparent from the narrative that his duty was to dispense justice. At best you can say that he had two duties in conflict, but that doesn't mean he didn't neglect one of them.
From the secular perspective, sure. From the Christian perspective (which, remember is what this whole discussion has been about) nothing else can really come close to "killing God" on a list of atrocities. So I would say that depends a great deal on your stance on other things.
According to not-the-gospels Pilate however, Jesus had done wrong and his blood was gladly taken on, as befits the role and dignity of a roman magistrate.
The entirely of the Testimonium Flavium, as we have it today:
That's not "diverged greatly," that's just short.
Without the cinematic parts of washing his hands, calling jesus innocent, saying his blood’s on their heads, it’s normal roman governor behaviour. He’s there to maintain peace and render justice onto the barbarians, there’s zero dereliction of duty in that account. And I don’t appreciate those so-called “christians’“ tarring of a roman senator as a weak-willed incompetent.
I can't help but think this is kind of a silly conversation. The Testimonium Flavianum is a known and obvious forgery, as @Jazzhands' link notes. It's ridiculous to take a forgery as evidence of anything about reality. Yes, it might have been altered from a Josephan original passage, but we don't have the Josephan original passage, and are basically taking wild guesses at what it might have said; this is okay-ish if all you care about is whether Josephus referred to Jesus at all, but anything further is trying to walk on clouds.
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
Historians of Jesus Christ run into a peculiar contradiction when it comes to trying to figure out the precise circumstances of his death. On one hand they need him to be a minor figure of the time that he wouldn't attract the attention of contemporary historians, on the other hand they need something egregious enough that it would lead to extraordinary application of the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But if Jesus wasn't killed, he couldn't save everyone, right?
If He had died by very slow decay, would that have counted as a sufficient sacrifice by God Incarnate?
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it a pretty wild idea that the torture and execution of a good man "saves the world"? What's the mechanism there? Sounds a bit like human sacrifice and scapegoating doesn't it? With some magic thrown in.
"Scapegoating" itself as a word comes from Jewish tradition where the sins of the entire nation would be laid on a single literal goat who was then released into the wilderness (practically, pushed off a cliff outside town), while another 'innocent' goat would be sacrificed on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year. Jesus literally and symbolically took the role of both being innocent and being sacrificed, and it's quite literal in Christianity that he took on him the sins of the world there, which sins would otherwise prevent us individually from reaching heaven. Reasons for why exactly he was capable of doing this differ across sects but usually are some variant of him being innocent or of godly nature.
In modern discourse being scapegoated is seen as a bad thing (i.e. avoiding responsibility) but Christians would agree that you need some action yourself to obtain this absolution, though it's "free" in a more general sense. Here is the key point where the various sects differ greatly, what action? Some believe that you need to follow some kind of true regret/restitution/prayer process, others that you need to confess to a priest, others that you actually don't have to do anything other than once in your whole life ask for forgiveness and that's it.
Tbh I have wondered before why atheists more militant than me don't harp on about this more. This entire concept relies on an ancient and, by most modern standards, vile concept of morality.
Forget looking at logical contradictions in the bible or the impossibility of miracles described there. The deepest core of christianity requires you to accept that offloading your guilt onto an innocent creature and then punishing that creature instead of you makes any fucking sense whatsoever. And that god accepts this bargain. I think that in any other context most modern christians would consider this an absurdly evil concept.
You mean the animal sacrifice aspect of Judaism? I agree it's definitely seen as somewhat barbaric by modern Western standards but for a good chunk of history it was pretty normal. Still practiced in parts of Hindu India and some Islamic countries, plus in Santería where that's a thing. You have to remember that part of that is because for a lot of history, animals were a major source of wealth. Judaism deliberately requiring the sacrifice of the "firstborn" or most "unblemished" of their flocks served multiple purposes - one, the fact that it was a bit of a waste was kind of the point, showing your devotion via valuable things; two, at least at some points in Jewish history, the meat would be used as a revenue and food source for the Levites, the priest tribe, who otherwise didn't have their own land; three, there's some doctrinal symbolism, both for Christians and Jews although the symbolism's exact flavor varies. I think that's relatively emblematic of the use of animal sacrifice in religion more broadly: ideas about drama, tribute, and symbolism (blood is a very obvious expression of life). I guess obviously, if you feel as a modern atheist that we are overcoming human nature or something, sure it might be
Or do you mean the moral idea of sin and guilt in general? I feel like that's pretty natural and human. People struggle with guilt in non-religious contexts all the time. Wanting someone or something to take away that guilt follows pretty logically. Even psychologists think a certain degree of guilt is healthy - it's more the shame side of things that can be harmful, or when it's excessive.
Edit: What exactly is the vile part? The animal sacrifice (poor animals, barbaric butchery) or the guilt bit? I guess you could consider wanting other people or things to take away guilt as somewhat maladaptive. But a full absolution via zero personal action/responsibilty is not typically the connected belief, except for maybe some born-again Christians, but I think they tend to be the minority, most still feel like some steps of personal improvement or reconciliation are needed (i.e. repentence).
The vile part is the guilt transference. Christianity doesn't say that everyone's guilty but god forgives them anyway (not that I don't think original sin is a pretty vile concept as well), christianity says that god can forgive us because he transferred our just punishment by torturing Jesus to death (though he got better). That Jesus dying for other peoples sins is a meaningful moral concept.
If the mother of a criminal to be executed says "No, take me instead!", the official who says "Ok, sure" and executes the mother is an injust tyrant, regardless of how much genuine repentance the criminal feels afterwards.
Ah, I see. You could call it selfless love, though, from Jesus' perspective? I guess I understand how you'd think from a judgement of God the Father's perspective that seems kind of messed up.
Answers obviously vary, but my own religion (LDS/Mormon) actually has a bit of a different view in that God obeys certain laws, and among them are that sinful people literally cannot enter heaven. In our setup, there was basically a big meeting before the Earth was created where everyone already existed, and God proposed a plan for human growth and development, including obtaining physical bodies and learning to overcome temptation. Jesus volunteered to overcome death and make it possible there, and we all also agreed to participate. Thus it's not all about sin directly, it's more about growth, and if you don't grow enough you don't quite go to hell either - you just go to a place where you feel most comfortable, with people of a similar level of purity and goodness together, and sinful-character people wouldn't feel comfortable in God's direct presence. That is to say as well, the Fall and its consequences wasn't a disaster, but a pre-planned opportunity to propel directional growth. I got off topic but in that perspective God is quite literally constrained to set it up this way rather than making a deliberate choice to torture his son to death. In fact, we move the "main event" to the garden of Gethsemane rather than the cross for much this same reason, emphasizing the elective nature of it while the cross is more about the victory over death (why the cross is not used, we view the resurrection as also more important than the crucifixion). Thus it's not purely legalistic, but rather a setup that allows mercy to assist with the innate natural spiritual consequences of bad/immoral choices, while also allowing for true moral agency to exist. Although the details can vary significantly, there are other evangelicals who believe something similar and more in line with what you describe, that sin literally requires punishment, so Jesus was performing a kind of legal act in assuming the sin. You're right that some related framings there indicate God defines what is good and bad, it's not independent, which might be more problematic in that context.
This isn't universal across Christianity, I should note: some sidestep the whole issue and never address if Jesus' suffering was actually necessary or view it as strictly inspirational, others don't think the cross was about guilt at all, but in fact was breaking the power of death as a kind of liberation (forgiveness is free more independently of Jesus), and still others think the cross was more about God identifying with humanity as an act of ultimate empathy (I think Eastern Orthodox is roughly those last two, though I'm sure our motte residents could tell you more).
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
Unironically yes. The Bible depicts it as a sacrifice: though those who killed Jesus didn’t intend it that way, Jesus did. And if you do a quick search, you will find a million sermons with titles like “Christ our Scapegoat,” referencing the literal scapegoat in Leviticus.
Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, offering himself as a sacrifice to God the Father on behalf of sinners is the mechanism. It’s the core of Christian belief.
Maybe I should try reading the Bible at some point. Is it good literature? :P
There's some novelty in that particular human sacrifice: instead of the victim being labeled evil, he gets labeled god. Which kinda puts a finishing touch to the whole tradition instead of having to find a new scapegoat at each turning. In theory, at least.
Edit: typo
There are (roughly) two kinds of religiously motivated murders.
One is the sacrifice, where you want to send your god a juicy piece of meat or some virgin pussy or kid as a bribe or tribute. Generally, the sacrifice is a mean to an end, the process is really a transaction between the one sponsoring the sacrifice and god. Sure, you might get extra virtue points for sacrificing your favorite daughter, but if she happens to have her period on the set date you can just sacrifice another daughter. Generally, you want your sacrifices to be pure and hale. Sacrificing a lame goat or a disobeyant child might be seen as an insult, after all.
The other type of murder is a punishment for a religious transgression, real or imagined, such as witchcraft, blasphemy, heresy. This is primarily a matter between the accused and the community, just like a secular crime.
This is well illustrated by the concept of the scapegoat. You start out with two goats. One stays pure and is sacrificed to god, the other gets the sins transferred to it and is then abandoned in the desert, for god to punish it as he wants. Full of sins, it would not make a good sacrifice for god, after all.
While punishments are widespread, pure sacrifices of humans are very much optional for religions. In the religions of the book it only appears (to my knowledge) in YHWH's fucked up little mind games he plays with Abraham, with the sacrifice being stopped. The Romans -- themselves not shy about infanticide -- likewise stamped it out where they could.
Of course, there are also mixed forms. For example, the Christian tradition of burning someone at the stake for religious transgressions is very much reminiscent of burnt sacrifices by earlier religions. I think that sometimes, it is explicitly stated that the purpose of this form of death penalty is to purify the victim so that they can get into heaven despite their crime. This is more seen as a 'favor' to the victim than as a favor to god, but parsing it as "souls for the soul lord!" does not seem entirely wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
It depends on what parts of the Bible. Some, absolutely. My very-atheist hometown of Portland, OR (suburbs but still) had a "Bible as Literature" English elective class in high school! No, I didn't take it, sadly.
Not all chapters are equal, and it also depends on the translation. KJV has a pretty famous poetic style, though the NRSV keeps a good bit of the charm while updating the language somewhat. Read some famous passages in the ESV though and you might feel like a toddler, it's pretty bad. There's some of the Psalms, of course, parts of Isaiah with nice imagery, the start of Genesis is a bit of a classic. In the New Testament, it's a little more parceled out into particular chapters, though John and Luke are definitely more literary than the other Gospels.
More options
Context Copy link
Afaik aztek human sacrifice tradition also held many of the victims in high regard.
That's part of the buy-in for effect, isn't it? You don't get much favor from the gods for sacrificing a rat. The more you invest, the more ROI. I think that's how it goes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's kind of cliched.
I've never heard of people claiming that the Bible is good literature make similar claims about the Koran or other scriptures. So I'm inclined to think that claims that the Bible is good literature are mostly halo effect (with some addition of 'everyone uses it so you need to read it to know the references').
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah basically God sacrificing his son patched out the sacrifice dependency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. But the Christian position is that even though the outcome was good, the act was still bad. I've never heard anyone seriously try to argue that killing Jesus was good on a consequentialist basis, anyways.
There have been people who've taken that line historically. That's the line of the Gospel of Judas, for instance: that Judas was a hero because he caused the Crucifixion, which saved the world.
However, this is obviously heretical, and to my knowledge orthodox Christianity has never had any time for it. The Crucifixion may have been the means by which the world was saved, but it was still nonetheless an evil deed.
More options
Context Copy link
The Gospel of Judas did.
More options
Context Copy link
I've heard about some ancient Gnostics who argued exactly that. They got excommunicated as heretics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link