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 like symbolism, but when I see the likes of this I groan "oh God, not this crap again". Yeah, give us mystic Christianity divorced from any roots in a living faith tradition, where we can pull it around like Sam Harris Buddhism (get the benefits, dump the woo, be compatible with our true god Science!) to fit what we want without making demands.
If you want Christ the Cosmic Mystic Gnosis Theosis jack-in-the-box, you can go for Theosophy or any range of Western Esoteric traditions that will fit you right up but make no demands of you along the lines of But you, who do you say I am?.
If you want mysticism rooted in tradition, explore the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, but be aware that this is work, not just 'sit there and contemplate my own inner awesomeness'.
There are a lot of people in the world today who just straight up hate the idea of Christianity in its modern formation. Decades of 'oh you believe in an old man in the clouds with a fluffy beard granting wishes' has poisoned them, and then they couple that with the mundanity of everyday worship and nope right out. But they still have a deep yearning for spiritual connection. They have been looking into Buddhism, and esoterics and paganism for a spirituality still rooted in materialism and if you speak to them in that language you can actually reach them. And you can learn more about your own faith by seeing how alternative faiths work too. I didn't have the foresight you did, it wasn't until I started reading about Blavatsky and co that I realised how deep narcissism runs in people. It says it pretty regularly in the bible, yes, but it didn't click until I saw their working out.
Edit: I just read your post below about Arianism - are you actually directly talking about me?
Can you really blame them, Christianity as an institution has been speedrunning blasphemies upon blasphemies with a straight face for centuries, from the absorption of the Trinitanism cult nonsense (god being three beings yet one), the constant Idolatry (Icons, Crosses, holy trinkets, holly sites) the base and mundane nonsense (The Pope says trans rights). It's all so tiresome.
I know people NEED a certain flare of the mystical made physically manifest, even if just to have something to do during communal rituals, but this doesn't ameliorate how stupidly worldly and mundane it all is.
Yeah, this is why I have gone straight for Orthodoxy. Although Icons are definitely not heretical, they were used in the early church, you can look it up blah blah.
Wait the Trinity is a cult? Huh. You mind unpacking your beliefs more I'm curious what you think the true Gospel is?
In my admittedly pedestrian view the trinity thing is the church trying to twist itself into pretzels to explain why it worships Jesus(nominally a prophet/son of god and marry) while still trying to maintain it's a monotheistic religion status /not a type of polytheistic pantheon. Admittedly they are doing the same thing to a lesser degree with the canonization of saints, you're supposed to pray to them and have them advocate for your desires/wants to big G.
Yeah this is a pretty pedestrian view, lol. You could take this line of reasoning with literally any complex argument ever. Just because something isn't simple and immediately obvious doesn't make it wrong.
If you read the arguments for the Trinity from the early Church Fathers, they are incredibly well thought out and use lots of argumentation. That being said, I'm not a theologian so I am not bothered much. I'm fine to let it be a Holy Mystery.
It's just that for me the whole papering over the other Elohim when Judaism went from worshiping El to YHWH and the purging of the other gods is fishy as hell, we're supposed to ignore the history of the religion? It just never sat right with me, same with the focus on Jesus himself.
Not to mention that YHWH clearly changes character over time. YHWH in a lot of Genesis is an insecure and jealous dick, but by the New Testament, and perhaps even before, he's become a much more mature and wise figure. I like Jung's explanation of this (if we are built in the image of God, it makes sense for God to also have integrate his own shadow, which he does in part by incarnating and being killed as Jesus, but also through his various covenants with Noah/Abraham/David/Job). But of course this violates the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent axioms, so it's heresy in pretty much any church.
Perhaps the resistance to this kind of textual/historical analysis (or even openness to debate) is why I haven't been to church for a couple months. Once you start to poke holes in this stuff and are met with hostility rather than answers, it's pretty hard to not see what a house of cards it all is. "No matter how tender, how exquisite... A lie will remain a lie..."
Jung goes a lot farther than that, arguing Satan needs to be raised to the Trinity in order for the Church to fully embrace the shadow. I liked Jung but idk reading more of his theology makes me realize he uhh well let's just say I disagree strongly. Also finding out about his personal ethics was a bit of a shock.
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