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 -
Ok, but there are some humans who are more powerful than you, there are some humans who are more good than you, there are some humans who know more than you. Do you worship them in this capacity? Is being stronger, smarter, and nicer than a human what distinguishes God to you above, say, your mom?
It sounds like what you're saying is that there needs to be a difference of type, not just "amount", between us and God?
I disagree that omnipotence is just "more powerful" than me. It's definitionally different. It's not that God can accomplish a million times what I can with one one-millionth the effort; he can accomplish infinitely more than me with zero effort. There's no amount of strength or power that will get you there.
To me the difference between morally perfect, and very good, is the same. There's still an infinite gap between "sins every few decades" and "never sins," let alone God's positive virtues.
Anyways you're interpreting what I said as a definition. I didn't give you a definition of God, I gave you who he is--how I identify him. I don't have a definition for you any more than I have a definition of my dad. I can tell you what traits I believe God has, but my internal definition is subordinate to reality. Perhaps if I were infallible it would not be, but I'm not God.
I still want a straight answer here. Or at least a "I can't possibly be wrong" so that we can end this conversation.
I have a distinction between Honor and Worship. Because I'm Catholic, this distinction is often rendered in Latin.
Dulia - Veneration. The regular form of honor and respect that is given to saints and angels, but never to the same degree as the adoration reserved for God alone. Dulia involves the veneration of these figures as role models and intercessors, acknowledging their exemplary lives, trying to follow their example, and asking for their prayers.
Hyperdulia - An exceptional form of reverence due to Mary specifically according to her perfections and unique role in humanity's salvation. If God is as you described, he would be worthy of this. It is different from Dulia in degree, not in kind.
Proskynesis/Latria - The profound homage, adoration, and worship (sacrifice) that is only given to God as the Supreme Good. It is different from Hyperdulia in kind, not just degree. The God you describe is not the Supreme Good, and so would not be worthy of this.
Thanks.
I'll try to explain why I find this important.
I brought up my dad as an example of identifiers vs. definitions. Even if I thought he invented pizza and that turned out to be false, I wouldn't think, my dad definitionally no longer exists, and actually the person who raised me is just a similar person. I would think, I was wrong about my dad. He hasn't changed though, it's just that my knowledge of him is now better than it was.
When it comes to people (including God) who I haven't met personally, the rules work a bit differently. Maybe I think Columbus was a conquistador and Pizarro discovered America. In this case it's not that I have their "definitions" wrong so to speak, I just have their names mixed up. Let's say I know what they each looked like, and associate Columbus' physical appearance with "Pizarro" and Pizarro's physical appearance with "Columbus." In other words, the person I think of as Pizarro looks like Pizarro, but has Columbus' physical appearance, and vice versa for Columbus.
Since their physical appearance is really not relevant to me, in practice I still have them mixed up. Similarly, if it turns out that "John" isn't actually my biological father, then it's not that the person I think of as "my dad" doesn't exist; it's that certain important identifiers which I thought described him do not. If "he" were (unbeknownst to me) two people, one of which has all the attributes I associate with my father, and the other is my actual biological father, the former would still be the person I think of as my dad.
I don't think I've explained this very well but it's the best I can do, sorry.
When I say, "what if God were everything except the uncaused cause?" what I'm trying to expose is what part of God you find most important. The thing about God that I find most important is who he is (on a tangible level) and what he has done for me. He performed the atonement, loves me perfectly, effects miracles, created the Earth, etc.; he is flawless, omnipotent, eternal, and infinitely loving. To me these facts about him are infinitely more important than the nature of how and why he is those things, or even other details about what he is.
I got a little upset that you called my God a superhero, because, well, a superhero can't perform the atonement. You're wrong about LDS theology in general--within our theology, God being subject to / consistent with Truth doesn't limit him at all. But even if you weren't, even if he was limited within our theology, he would still be a great deal more holy and sacred than Spider-man, and worthy of what I would call worship. Certainly you wouldn't use that language to describe Mary, who is even within your theology a much less divine being than the LDS God.
Anyways I appreciate the discussion we've had so far, and apologize for getting a bit heated. Maybe next time we can debate which version of God is actually more accurate, but for now I'm tapping out haha.
P.S. the other sad thing about this is that, if you consider the "definition" of God more important than what he has done, then (my understanding is) you don't necessarily think that when I talk about "God" I'm even referring to the real God. Throughout this conversation I've felt we're just talking about God, and disagreeing about his nature, whereas you've felt that we're talking about two separate entities, only one of which is real at all. That's probably why you felt like it was fair to describe the LDS god as a superhero--because you're not even slightly referring to the real God. Apparently our beliefs are so far off that they're not even considered heresies. It just makes me sad.
I actually wouldn't be put out with someone calling Mary a superhero, haha. "Hail Mary, full of grace, punch the devil in the face!" is something a Catholic gleefully says. My view of a superhero would be different from yours, perhaps.
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