site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A godless liberal goes to church

I knew in advance that my frustration with the godless progressive milieu that did everything but (ok, not but) cheer a horrifying political assassination, would be unlikely to be assuaged by attending my local Unitarian church's sunday service, but since I had read it described as the most intellectual church, and because of its sensibility towards Christ's (obvious lack of) resurrection, I felt like it would be the most likely out of the various sects to be a spiritual home for me.

I had no idea how bad it is in there.

The introductory speaker began the service reading very slowly and deliberately through various housekeeping items in a kind of "this is why boys in school have ADD" teacher voice. It was revealed that this was a special "all ages" day that they do every month. Could this be why she was reading to us in a voice like we were all babies, or is she always like this, I wondered. The last thing she did before passing the mic was asking us all to stand up and get the wiggles out.

The choir then got up and sang "Liberty and Justice for all" by Brandon Williams. Could this be an old Whiggish protestant church song, I wondered. But as it started "We are frightened... we are angry... we are rising..." which came across as a bit modern to me.

Then they sit down and they are followed by some ceremony to induct new people to serve as some kind of counselor role, which involves some vow reading that takes a while. Then they sit down and the choir gets up again, to sing "One Foot/Lead With Love" by Melanie DeMore which again contains words about being "scared," but it's a bit catchier than the first song.

Then they go sit down and now the two apparent church leaders say they are going to tell us a "story." Very slowly and deliberately they read out a baby story about two brothers trying to find God. They go up to the mountains, but they don't see God there...

I have to leave. The whole experience has felt like being Dracula confronted with a crucifix. Every cell in my brain screaming to get out of this holy place. Exiting the door I'm confronted with pouring down rain on a street with cars going by and I'm struck by the beauty and calm. THIS is where God is, is the thought that occurs to me.

So now my thought is, culturally, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!? How is THAT what church is? Jesus Christ! How fucking horrible was all that? I could not believe only 30 minutes had passed.

I looked up the two choir songs and they are both basically anti-Trump protest songs written in 2016/17. Why are we singing about how scared we are? Why don't we fucking man up?

Why in every aspect is this a church for babies? Where even the children are bored by their pandering to them?

I was raised as a godless liberal but I had an idea that if things felt really dire and miserable, or if I felt like I needed God for whatever reason, any one of these places would at least do a serviceable job of keeping me connected. Holy hell was I wrong, there are some fucking bad, miserable churches.

I'm from a traditionally AUA family. Always think about writing about it, never seem to find the time.

I left in the '90s, so I don't know if what @MayorofOysterville said is true about the UUs, but I can mostly agree with it about other old school liberal orgs:

Basically Boomer liberal organizations were actually liberal and boomer liberals did believe in principles such as free speech. However, they lacked the antibodies to deal with hardcore woke cadre because they could easily be manipulated by being called racist and out of touch with the youth.

My parents are Depression / war babies rather than Boomers. And I think I've said it before on here, but yeah I was raised that freedom of speech was our most important principle as liberals.

But UUs also had a previous problem that I grew up watching, where the uh "old believers" ;) were, basically, swamped by all the ex-other-denoms coming in in the '70s and '80s. It's hard to find the time to try to write about it though....

The strangest conclusion one can draw from these five crucial minutes of that shortest day--though it would have been perfectly clear, had one bothered to read the signs--is the fact that the refugee horde seemed so blithely unaware that this land it was about to make its own could possibly belong to others already....

all those determined to see it through to the end come pouring from the villas, and cottages, and gardens, down to the beach...to welcome the refugees and guide their first steps. They will. They must. For their own self- fulfillment. Life is good. Life is love, and all men are brothers....

Panama Ranger scans the surging mob, almost close enough to touch him, trying to find a smiling face, a glance to grasp the friendship in his eyes. But he looks and looks. No smile meets his. No one even seems to see him.... He's finally seen the light. "They don't need me," he murmurs. "They'll just take what they please. I can’t give them a thing ..."

As for his pals, they disappeared too, absorbed and digested in much the same way... Only a handful were adopted, as it were, yet lots of them did their damnedest to be helpful... But they soon got discouraged. Though the horde often listened and took their good advice...they no sooner gave it than they felt themselves rejected. The brightest among them were quick to understand: the more helpful they were, indispensable in fact, the more hateful they became.... No one wants to have to remember the masters and mentors from the opulent past. They're just in the way.

You could say: they didn't seem to join thinking they were you know joining a church. They seemed to join thinking "Here's what I can call myself while doing whatever the hell I want." From my biased perspective.

And then before that there was the AUA-Universalist merger. (Which arguably opened the door for the problems I saw growing up...but both--the merger and the problems--could just as easily be attributed to the times.)

And then there's the snide attitude most people here take to Unitarians. I would suggest that people apply the "write like everyone is reading (including Unitarians)" rule. And of course it's hard to write about people you don't know. But then that applies to me too these days wrt the UUs.

My parents haven't attended a church since the '90s. They don't like the one where I grew up, they don't like the one where they now live. They have a lot of Congregationalist friends, so they're thinking of joining their local Congregationalist church. (The AUA was formed by Congregationalists who were dissatisfied with Calvinism. Problem: So are my folks...)

The AUA was not "created to be a liberal denomination of [implied by the quotes: fake] 'Christianity.'"

To get a better understanding of what it was for, I suggest reading Harriet Beecher Stowe's roman a clef Oldtown Folks (Ellery Davenport is basically Aaron Burr, except that he dies instead of Hamilton). Guess I could summarize as: It was invented by and for a certain type of person, who (at least in a Christian context) needed it. It does not work well for anyone else.

So, I've been going to Catholic mass about 6 months now with my family. I guess I've spoken before about having belief fatigue, and being willing just go "fuck it" and believe whatever they tell me in Church for the first time at the ripe age of 40+. I've found most of the selected readings and hymns (which are standardized) fairly illustrative of the human condition and/or appropriately praiseworthy of a divine creator that can save your soul. One day the hymns even hit me in just the right way to bring me to tears. The homilies have been good, and entirely about being a better person, and doing works to make the world a better place. They don't point fingers or lay blame, except the exhort each and every one of us to be better. Kinder, more patient, more proactive to help others. I've gotten better at following along with the lord's prayer, the creed and the penitential act. I still can't follow along when they bust out Gloria or Holy Holy Holy.

It's been good for me, and for my family and I highly recommend it.

I know a woman well who's is in her 60s and very much a NYT liberal. She attends a Unitarian derived Church and even she invariably finds the speakers there to be some combination preachy, dry, up their own asses, or just plain cringe. I suspect that when the thing that unites you is politics more so than religion, that religion will inevitability appear fake, because it is.

You quite literally went to the worst denomination possible. Unitarians aren't even Christians under most traditional definitions, as they reject the Trinity.

The whole Unitarian movement has always been very liberal. They basically were created to be a liberal denomination of "Christianity".

As a Catholic, if you're interested in engaging intellectually with Christianity, look into a welcoming, conserative Catholic parish. Parishes associated with cathedrals are your best bet. No shade to our Protestant brothers, but Catholics have the longest and most robust intellectual tradition.

I do think those traditional definitions are a bit impractical though. Everyone refers to Arianism as Arian Christianity. And it seems really hard to define a protestant church which uses the the Biblical canon, the traditional hymns, a normal communion as non Christian. I get that Unitarian Universalists aren't that, but any outside observer who went to one of those Hungarian unitarian churches would likely call them Christian.

Are there even any churches that aren't progressivism lite and don't follow the Trinitarian thing? ( I have my own personal gripes with the whole trinitarian concept, I guess I'm not really a "christian" as I don't consider Christ to be God himeself.)

There is a Filipino Church called Iglesia ni Christo which denies the trinity. They are fairly large 2.5 million members and do have US churches so you could check them out. Their chief pastor met with Duterte and they are mostly based in the Philippines so I highly doubt they are woke.

Yes. Oneness Pentecostals deny the trinity and are rarely progressive. Jehovahs witnesses also.

Yeah, they're called Islam and Mormons the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm only half joking. And Mormon theology is really wack. Interestingly when Islam first emerged, the original view of Christendom was it was a heresy, not a distinct religion.

Some Unitarians in eastern Europe (Hungary) might be more conservative, I don't know.

Other major contemporary (socially) conservative non-Trinitarians (if not specifically Unitarians) include Oneness Pentecostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. There's a whole range of smaller denominations that are anti-Trinitarian in various ways that you may have heard of, generally they're pretty crazy and their theology is a joke.

As a general comment, I understand why people have problems with the Trinity, but at the same time it is the orthodox Christian position for a reason and does have intellectual weight behind it.

I don't think the Unitarians in Hungary have anything to do with American Unitarian Universalists, the universalist does a a lot of work. Though i'm not sure how vibrant a schismatic Hungarian sect is.

No shade to our Protestant brothers, but Catholics have the longest and most robust intellectual tradition.

Four out of five dentists Patriarchs disagree...

Au contraire, there is a Catholic patriarch for these sees.

As someone who really misses the community of church but really can't will myself to believe anymore. I really really like the idea of the Unitarian Church and think it would have been pretty neat 40 years ago but I've never attended because I suspected it would be exactly as you describe.

As for what is going on literally every old school liberal organization has had the same issue. From The Unitarians to the ACLU it's all the same thing. The intercept had an excellent article about this but it seems to be taken down. Basically Boomer liberal organizations were actually liberal and boomer liberals did believe in principles such as free speech. However, they lacked the antibodies to deal with hardcore woke cadre because they could easily be manipulated by being called racist and out of touch with the youth. During Trumps first term essentially every old school big L liberal organization fell to woke and abandoned it's early high minded principle and the unitarians are no exception. There's a whole blocked and reported episode about it.

Yeah this is more or less where I was coming from, and was hoping for some vestige of what it may have been in case it was possible to find a place that I could actually share beliefs with. And that explanation rings true to me, though it's just kind of tragic to think about the cultural loss there. I'll have to check out that episode.

If you do there was a breakaway faction that was purged from the main group. They might have more remnants of the old tradition.

I believe my grandmother grew up Unitarian, and that was where she got her quiet atheism and staunch belief in never discussing religion from. She was a good lady, including those attributes, and I'm not trying to make fun of her.

People say it as though they are being sarcastic, but Woke America is literally what agnostic Christians are. I tried going to my neighborhood Presbyterian church once, and the main song was about the singer's friend dying from Aids in 90s New York. Then I stayed for coffee, and the music director was trying to talk about his genderqueer daughter as delicately as possible -- he was clearly a bit distressed that she doesn't consider herself a daughter anymore and he's not supposed to use gendered language, but was struggling.

My father kept trying to go to an Episcopalian church that didn't particularly believe in Christ, because they had a nice choir, and nice architecture, and candles during the appropriate seasons. But the sermons were terrible, like the middle aged women getting up on their social media soapboxes, and he couldn't manage.

I don't get it on a visceral level, but it is what it is. There seems to be something important about actually believing in Christ, without which Christianity becomes horrifically cringe, more than even fake paganism which at least has nice bonfires and solstice celebrations and whatnot.

As others have said, there are churches that aren't like that. Usually they aren't that upset if someone shows up, and they don't necessarily believe in God, but are polite about it. If they're one of the livelier churches, they might try to convert you, but even if they're all Hellfire about it, it's still probably a richer cultural experience than the Unitarians.

If you don't believe there's a One True Religion, it might actually be worth thinking in terms of rich cultural experiences, rather than intellectualism or not believing weird things. I like visiting Sufis, for instance -- I once was in a screened off female balcony while some Sufi congregants chanted themselves into a trance and stuck skewers through their faces. It was super interesting! I was glad I went! If someone invites you to go sacrifice a cow of something, consider going. Humans don't seem capable of making religions that are deep and lively without also being kind of weird, and risking snake handlers or whirling dervishes or some such thing.

staunch belief in never discussing religion from.

You know, I have a couple of Gen X friends (women) who I'm quite sure voted for Harris express and then agree on the statement "so this is why our parents' generation had a rule against discussing politics or religion in polite company." I've always mostly abided by that myself, but it felt interesting to hear the sentiment voiced aloud.

There seems to be something important about actually believing in Christ, without which Christianity becomes horrifically cringe

Indeed, and this isn't a new observation either. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul writes:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

The initial description reminds me of that episode of Metalocalypse where Murderface tries to find religion and attends a Church of Satan service.

The rest just sounds like its a church that is designed to be as politically influential as possible while still legally qualifying as a 'religious institution.' Really lays bare the "Wokeism is a secular liberal religion" factor.

As someone who grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, I genuinely cannot imagine attending a weekly service that WASN'T specifically about paying worship and adulation to an all-powerful deity you believe could intercede in the world. What is the real, actual point otherwise.

I would, no exaggeration, find it less cringey to worship C'thulhu without irony.

This reads more like a godless liberal visiting a godless liberal church and being horrified at the cultural appropriation.

If you want to go to a church, I'd suggest going to something which is the real thing, not something that's been watered down to appeal to some modern ideology. You might not like or agree with it but I suspect you would respect it more for it being what it is, rather than it pretending to be something else. The churches which most closely resemble the early church are Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I recommend Eastern Orthodoxy. I am biased since it is my denomination and I think it is the original. It is also very beautiful. You will not find a shrill woman lecturing you like a baby.

Depending on where you live, the Eastern Orthodox might be far away, or might be in a foreign language like Russian or Greek. I recommend reading this article before you go.

If you go to a Catholic church, the Traditional Latin Mass ones are not watered down, though the services are in Latin. Some like or don't like that. I personally find them quite beautiful, and it might help you avoid ruminating on your intellectual objections to what is being said. But similarly, it might be a bit of a drive to find a Traditional Latin Mass. Try this map.

If you want to get an idea of a stereotypically American, protestant church experience, here is a list of traditional Protestant parishes from Redeemed Zoomer.

What you get out of it depends on your mindset going in. If you go in with a receptive, open mind, you'll probably have a better experience. If you go in with a mind towards intellectually testing/combating it, you'll probably have a worse experience. I don't know where you are at so I can't say. If you are in want of intellectual arguments for the truth of Christianity, or the easier claim that God exists, I can provide them. They are out there, but are not very well known.

With all honesty, I suggest next Sunday visiting your local Baptist megachurch. I get that it isn't your vibe and w/e, but think of it as engaging your curiosity, because I promise it'll be a different experience than what you're relating here. You can just go, satisfy your curiosity, and never go again.

Or just go to Catholic Mass (just make sure you stay seated for Communion, participating in Communion is a massive faux pas if you're not a member in good standing) but I (unfortunately) expect you'll just be bored.

idk anything but a church whose whole existence is to be political, vs a church whose whole existence is to be a church. (UU and UCOC and many others exist to be political)

Thanks for the suggestion, that sounds like that would make a good followup experience.

Heck, if you're trying to satisfy curiosity, I'd say branch out and check out more "exotic" things like Eastern Orthodox churches or Iskcon (Hare Krishna) temples in your city. If your city is anything like mine, they will be 50-90% immigrants following a deeply rooted tradition, and it is just fascinating seeing all the ways people do religion.

I visited the Bahá'í House of Worship near Chicago when they weren't having services, and it was beautiful and welcoming. Like the Unitarians, they aren't worried about practitioners of other faiths going to hell for being wrong, and they have nice aesthetics.

When I visited Harvard’s Unitarian church due to social obligation, they all snapped their fingers in agreement with the pastoress. The racial disparity of Harvard faculty was noted in the homily. It’s neat that American Christianity is totally modular and you can just attach whatever you want to it. It’s not a good thing, but it’s neat.

Woke progressivism wears many once venerable institutions like a skinsuit. It consumes all their social capital and then moves on to the next victim.

It's because Wokism is a Christian heresy.

That's an interesting claim, considering that it came significantly out of atheism. E.g.:

Most movement atheists weren’t in it for the religion. They were in it for the hamartiology [the study of sin, in particular, how sin enters the universe]. Once they got the message that the culture-at-large had settled on a different, better hamartiology, there was no psychological impediment to switching over. We woke up one morning and the atheist bloggers had all quietly became social justice bloggers. Nothing else had changed because nothing else had to; the underlying itch being scratched was the same. They just had to CTRL+F and replace a couple of keywords.

I'm pretty doubtful that if one examines the continental->critical philosophy pipeline that may have undergirded some of the trend, one would find a pool of Christian heretics, either. I guess if you say that all the atheism is just Christian heresy (would be quite a claim) and that Wokism is just atheist heresy, blink and imagine some form of transitive property, you might be able to think that Wokism is just Christian heresy.

I guess if you say that all the atheism is just Christian heresy (would be quite a claim)

Not that outlandish. In many cases, the God they didn't believe in was specifically the Christian God.

I mean that's just a vestige of the culture. By this logic Catholicism is a Greek Pagan heresy since the Catholic Church incorporated a lot of Greek philosophy in it's formation.

I guess if you say that all the atheism is just Christian heresy (would be quite a claim)

This has been a pretty popular take I've seen floating around over the last few years actually. Tom Holland pushes it and repeats it on pretty much every religiously adjacent podcast he goes on. His view (at least expressed in his book 'Dominion') is that a) necessarily European modes of thought are themselves Christian, so that liberalism, enlightenment thought, rationality, and so on, are themselves essentially Christian, and b) specifically the concept of the secular is unique to Christianity, which ties in with atheistic modes of thought via some extra steps. For context, Holland is a pretty milquetoast liberal, albeit a (cultural?) Christian.

I've also seen versions of the view popular in NRx circles. Nick Land has been on a liberalism = anglo-being kick for a while now, and I think would agree that Dawkins style New Atheism is itself essentially Anglo (and therefore Protestant). I can't remember who else off the top of my head has made similar claims but the narrower "atheism is just protestantism taken to it's logical conclusion" view is also one of I've seen pushed by online Catholics.

I can't really buy this we had Atheist Greeks and Philosophical schools before Christianity. The Enlightment is pretty non Christian. And China was ruled by a secular philosophical school as base value rather than religion. It seems way to much a just so story. The concept of the secular is definitely not unique to Christianity.

Dominion is a good read and makes the argument much better than I could. I don't think I agree with you about China though. By secularism I mean both the concept of separation of church and state, but also the general conceptual rendering that comes with "render unto Caesar", that there is a realm of life which isn't governed by the religious. Worth noting of course this has often been ignored by Christian states themselves, but was picked up with more seriousness later down the line. But Chinese emperors and dynasties had the Mandate of Heaven, oracle bones, and neo-Confucianism.

It sounds like an interesting book and I'll definitely take a look at it but is the Mandate of Heaven really that different from the divine right of kings?

I've also seen versions of the view popular in NRx circles.

I won't pretend to have read it all, but Moldbug wrote a whole book about this in 2007, https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/

Could this be why she was reading to us in a voice like we were all babies, or is she always like this, I wondered.

Ah yes, the female leader "speaking to subordinates like they are particularly dim 6-year-olds" voice.

the most intellectual church

Dude what the heck are you smoking? Or I guess what was the guy smoking who told you that?

Unitarians are self deluded cultists and generally not considered Christians at all. Their 'church' has for the most part been completely taken over by woke politics.

Anyway I won't belabor that point, but can I recommend you try attending an actual church? I personally attend and would recommend a Calvary Chapel, but some of the more traditional ones like Eastern Orthodoxy are also quite intellectual and will have plenty of people willing to engage you in discussion.

The intellectual quote was from a book written in 1940 about the 1800s, A Generation of Materialism, which I checked out from a Brian Caplan rec. That might be kind of burying the lede there. It was coming from a Catholic author, so I don't know if I'm missing some in-joke or if that really was a fair characterization at the time.

Unitarianism was historically a kind of Eastern European heresy. The modern American version basically just took the name. They're more properly termed "Unitarian Universalists" if you want to avoid confusion over the whole "New Age" thing.

In the 1800s, this really was the case. Unitarianism was historically signified by its view that the Trinity was an irrational and nonsensical doctrine — hence “Unitarian” rather than “Trinitarian.” It applied that same rationalism to most elements of its doctrine, and believed in putting rational analysis above traditional or doctrinal fidelity. Hence, the reputation you referenced.

Unitarianism had that reputation about up until the point where public atheism became acceptable for intellectuals, at which point both it and deism collapsed in numbers and the Unitarians began to align themselves more with religious humanism to survive.

I’m just echoing other posters here, but any church more conservative than the Methodists is going to be very insistent on the literal resurrection of Christ. If that’s not something you’re comfortable with, well, I wonder seriously what would even compel you to find Christianity interesting.

If what you’re looking for is a vague sense of belief in a higher power that doesn’t ask you to sign on to any specific dogma, well, I agree that the Unitarians say that’s what they’re offering… but obviously they’ve found a different set of dogmas to promote. There’s no such thing as a church without dogma.

The reality is that most churchgoers are moral busybodies, and either you agree with the things they’re busybodying about (whatever they are) or you don’t. Churches with any sort of vitality, whatever side of the culture war they’re on, are anything but vague.

People often talk about church as a place to find “a sense of community”, but I couldn’t disagree more: if you want community qua community, you’d be much better off going for a walk, reconnecting with friends, talking to family members, or joining a hobby club. Depending on your local culture, you’ll still face some level of moral policing. But if religious convictions aren’t your thing, maybe you’re better off finding a place where the topic of conversation is your thing.

I like to think of church as a hobby club, where the hobby is “having particular moral and supernatural beliefs.” If you have strong convictions on those, it’s great. If not, it’s like joining a DnD group when you don’t like imaginative play.

I looked up the two choir songs and they are both basically anti-Trump protest songs written in 2016/17.

The progressive retort would be that the fact you interpret a song called "Liberty and Justice for All" and a song about leading with love to be anti-Trump protest songs says more about you and Trump supporters than it does about churches. It's not political; it's called being a decent person—something even Christians understand.

Indeed, searching the first song yields a black songwriter, references to #BlackHistoryMonth, and an explanation that the song is part of the Justice Choir Songbook, where "Justice Choir is a template for more community singing for social and environmental justice. It’s designed around the Justice Choir Songbook, a powerful new collection of 43 songs about equity, justice, love, peace, and other issues of our time."

There's a fair amount of horseshoeing between the progressive left and mainstream religious right when it comes to sociopolitical topics such as Black Lives Mattering More. See, for example, Christians kneeling for and washing the feet of black people during the height of BLM, or how immediately various Christian denominations bent the knee for gay marriage.

A more recent example can be seen with the Austin Metcalf stabbing death, where the white father (Jeff Metcalf) of the slain high schooler publicly forgave the black stabber while denouncing those who Noticed and pattern-matched the incident. This triggered debates over the nature of Christian forgiveness, with five non-mutually exclusive contingents:

  1. Non-Christians (and some Christians) who were appalled by the forgiveness.
  2. Christians who defended the father's forgiveness as the Christianly thing to do.
  3. Christians who tried some jiu-jitsu, face-saving, and sane-washing: "Um, actually, forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean absolution..."
  4. Christians and non-Christians saying something to do the tune of: "Leave Jeff alone, he's a father grieving in his own way." Yet, I somehow suspect there would be a different tune if instead Jeff had reacted to the incident by chudding out and 13/52'ing.
  5. Non-Christians insisting the father's forgiveness was the right and Christianly thing to do with the vibe of "No, I'm not a Christian and I have nothing but contempt for your backward religious beliefs so yeah, this argument wouldn't work on me but maybe if I use it on you, you'll do what I want."

One commenter in /r/KotakuInAction remarked, paraphrased from my recollection: "These debates over what flavor of cuck God wants you to be reminds me of why I'm not a Christian."

Here's Liberty and Justice For All: http://songs.justicechoir.org/LibertyForAll

The Justice Choir logo features a closed fist. The lyrics:

We are frightened; We are angry; We are rising; We are hopeful; We are peaceful; We are striving; Won't stop fighting; Won't stop marching; Won't stop dreaming; Wont stop loving and proclaiming and believing

Our voices are united louder than hate, We have gathered here, We've had all we can take The time has come, you will hear our call. We're fighting for liberty and justice for all.

It includes this note from the composer:

The recent demonstrations and marches taking place throughout the country led me to the phrase 'liberty and justice for all.' Many steadfastly recite this line in the Pledge of Allegiance, but those words ring hollow for many Americans who find their civil liberties under attack, and the scales of justice tipped in favor of the wealthy and powerful. Protests are a small portion of what we must do in order to work toward a nation that truly provides liberty and justice FOR ALL

This is clearly a protest song with no indication that the hate being protested against is authored by Satan. Copyright 2017, it's either about Trump or police, probably both.

The Justice Choir logo features a closed fist.

Ha yeah, I Noticed that too but forgot to mention it.

I didn't feel like torturing myself by listening to a recording of it, but what also sprang to mind when looking at the sheet music is the sheer melodic simplicity of it, like Jingle Bells or Mary and a Little Lamb territory.

This footnote, which further corroborates @somethingsomething's feeling of infantilization during the experience, also made me inwardly chuckle:

"Performance Suggestion:

• For a unison or solo version, sing only the BIG notes above"

The BIG notes for BIG boys and girls! You can do it!

This is clearly a protest song with no indication that the hate being protested against is authored by Satan. Copyright 2017, it's either about Trump or police, probably both.

In the eyes of many, including those who believe in God, Trump or the police are a greater source of hatred than Satan.

UU is about the most unreligious religion you could find, and since the turn of the century they have become unambiguously woke in the extreme. There used to be some vestiges of actual Christianity in some UU congregations, but nowadays most UU churches are averse to anything other than progressive secular humanism, even if they vaguely handwave at spirituality.

If you want "Christianity lite" try the United Methodists (sometimes called "UUs pretending to be Christian"). They're pretty woke nowadays too but they still have actual services where Jesus is mentioned.

I mean, it's a unitarian universalist church. Like what did you expect? It's philosophical progressivism as a religion, if you're looking for anything else other than progressivism you, uh, shouldn't have gone there. There's plenty of more normal churches out there.

In a sense I knew what I was getting into, in another sense I really am a godless liberal with almost total naivete regarding what each church is "really like". I thought I'd start with the one who at least is most aligned with my belief that Jesus was not resurrected. And I was legitimately surprised with just how miserably it all went.

my belief that Jesus was not resurrected.

Okay. Please explain.

AMA but I think I have a pretty typical materialist view on that, not that im a totally strict materialist as I think consciousness is still puzzling. But I think that if God intervened, it would've been more likely for him to just make Paul think Jesus came back via his transcendent experience than to actually make Jesus come back, which raises a lot of questions on how that mechanically actually happens.

which raises a lot of questions on how that mechanically actually happens.

We still have people who are pronounced dead, but weren't, despite modern medical knowledge and tools. So it probably happened a lot more often in the past.

The bible explains that the Roman soldiers didn't follow the correct crucifixion procedure, where the legs of the person were broken. So it makes sense that Jesus could have barely survived, recovered a bit after being placed in a cool tomb, then wandered around a little in a stupor, and then died.

Then add a bit of embellishment and you have a resurrection narrative, with him transcending to heaven (aka actually dying) shortly after a faux death.

Lots of people saw resurrected Jesus before Paul.

Heck, Paul was still killing Christians for a while after Jesus had already disappeared into heaven behind a cloud.

I'm in the camp that basically believe that the gospels were heavily influenced by Paul along with Jesus' teachings while he was alive, so I don't put a huge amount of credence in anything that happened after the crucifixion in regards to Jesus, because I feel like Paul sort of profoundly shaped the cosmology from there going from his interpretation of his vision.

OK, just a guide to American churches- 'Megachurch' is, technically, just any large church. In practice, these are large protestant churches(often with multiple campuses) which are loosely if at all affiliated with a broader denomination. Instead, they have a charismatic senior pastor who sets the general tone, makes major decisions, and gives the main sermon(there are often multiple) each Sunday. If there's multiple campuses, then his sermon gets livestreamed for at least part of the service. Worship music is usually rock-concert tier. Theology tends to be fairly similar to Baptists. Majority white megachurches are normiecon politically and not shy about it; black megachurches are moderate democrats politically and likewise not shy about it. They take the gospel literally, can sometimes but not always be a bit more figurative with the old testament. Formal doctrinal views on morality are generally conservative regardless of race, but with a wink and a nod. Neither set of teachings is particularly emphasized; its a red/black tribe normie social club first and foremost. There may or may not be formal female clergy, but senior clerics are men and pastor's wives are de facto clergy in their husband's right.

Baptists are similar to megachurch protestants theologically, but have much stricter moral rules. Southern baptists are the largest denomination, there's both more liberal and more conservative white denominations. Like with megachurches, there's also a black variant. Worship varies from something approximating a rock concert with a fire-and-brimstone sermon to something a bit more traditional with church hymns and the like, but without a set service. They take the bible completely literally, including the first eleven chapters of genesis. In general there's no female clergy, but pastor's wives have a special role in congregation. Politically, they range from normiecon to far-right.

'Lectionary protestants' are a set of moderate to liberal denominations with a set order of worship services and set, predetermined religious calendar. What they have in common is that their congregations are very old and very white. Most have female clergy. Most have a conservative mirror referred to as 'confessional' protestants, who have similar services, religious calendars, and formal theology while maintaining strict moral theology standards, a male only clergy, etc. Theoretically, all of these groups take the gospel literally, with a sliding scale for how literally to take the old testament. In practice, plenty of lectionary protestants take large parts of the gospel figuratively. Lectionary protestants are generally moderate politically- even crazy liberal denominations have membership that's just too old to keep up with the far left- and confessional protestants are mostly normiecon.

Catholics have a set order of worship and religious calendar, in addition to very set doctrine. Individual parishes range from moderate democrat to far right politically, and you can probably find both within driving distance. While politics varies, moral theology is uniformly strict, even if enforcement might have a wink and a nod. No female clergy, the musical settings for worship can be almost anything but usually isn't rock. What musical setting is a fraught political issue. We take the gospel completely literally and the old testament seriously, but not always literally. There's a reputation for supporting evolution but the bishops officially endorse intelligent design etc. Catholicism entails belief in a large number of miracles not accounted for in the bible because they occurred after the bible was written and Catholics will be very offended by disbelief in the holy tilma, miraculous healings, etc. Much of the right wing intelligentsia is Catholic of various degrees of observance. Probably the most ethnically diverse of the major denominations, and generally uninterested in white nationalism even in the far right incarnation.

Pentecostals have rock-concert services at which they seek to demonstrate a set number of 'signs of faith' listed in the bible. 'Speaking in tongues' is the most popular of these. Snake handling is a popular way to make fun of them, but is a fringe movement therein. Politically conservative, they might have women clergy, and moral theology varies a fair bit. They take the bible 100% literally and hold a variety of post-biblical supernatural beliefs, but usually less firmly than Catholics.

Orthodox are a very small group in America, so small that sociologists just lump them in with Catholics. They hold similar supernatural beliefs and cover a similar spectrum, but a bit more predictable by subgroup. Ask @Gaashk for further details, I know ROCOR is the most conservative and OCA the most liberal. Services follow the same structure and different adaptations of the same calendar, but do have some variation in melody and language.

Mormons are structured like an actual cult, but tempered by the need to fit into mainstream society due to their size. Very strict moral theology, political conservatism. Doesn't technically have clergy but religious authorities are pretty much all men. Theoretically takes the bible, and a few other books, completely literally, in practice lots of them disregard that requirement. Members are very heavily policed for compliance with the requirements of mormon practice, but the mormon church offers lots of services to its members so they are incentivized to comply.

How are Mormons structured like a cult? Their prophet has almost the exact same doctrinal powers as the Pope. He can speak Ex Cathedra but usually doesn't. The rest of their church structure is based fairly closely on the Acts of the Apostles.

Pentecostals have rock-concert services at which they seek to demonstrate a set number of 'signs of faith' listed in the bible. 'Speaking in tongues' is the most popular of these. Snake handling is a popular way to make fun of them, but is a fringe movement therein. Politically conservative, they might have women clergy, and moral theology varies a fair bit. They take the bible 100% literally and hold a variety of post-biblical supernatural beliefs, but usually less firmly than Catholics.

How black is Pentecostalism in the US? In London most of the Pentecostal churches are ethnic churches for some African or Caribbean country.

Less black than the general population, probably more Hispanic/asian than most Protestant churches. African Americans overwhelmingly belong to black baptist/lectionary denominations or black mega churches. African immigrants are as likely to be Catholic as Pentecostal- and normie baptist as either.

Mormons are structured like an actual cult

What strikes me is that from European point of view, most of the denominations you listed would be considered to be somewhere between "somewhat weird ultraconservative sect inside the mainstream church" to "They're weird ass cultists, be careful when dealing with them". And I don't mean by young liberals but by people like my friend's retired father who spent 40 years as a pastor with mainline church beliefs before retiring a decade ago.

Do Europeans actually believe in a recognizable Christianity, though?

I once attended a Sunday church service in St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh. It was...a light crowd. I went back hours later to see it as a museum exhibit, and it was much livelier.

Cool building I guess.

There are Europeans who believe in a recognizable Christianity, but a big cathedral of the historical state church in the center capital city of some country (or autonomous region, in this case) is probably going to be quite a bad bet for finding them.

quite a bad bet for finding them.

Why should this be? It may be intuitive to you, but it's not to me.

For the same reason why Venice is no longer Italian. Too many tourists driving out the natives.

Imagine that your hobby spot gets disrupted constantly by tourists who gawk at you like you are a zoo animal. I bet that you'd find a more obscure spot that they can't find.

Lectionary protestants

Does this include Lutherans and Episcopalians?

Yes, although I separated out LCMS and WELS as confessional.

I thought I'd start with the one who at least is most aligned with my belief that Jesus was not resurrected.

That's kind of like going to a Mosque that doesn't believe Muhammad was a prophet...

Yeah more or less, it is a bummer to me how insistent Paul was on that but I suppose it was probably necessary to keep the project together and convert the Pagans.

I can add the POV of an annoying agnostic (who's nevertheless been to various churches for various reasons) -- Unitarianism is a highly non-central example of a church.

Their services are weird and offputting even to non-Catholics. (IME)

Unitarians are so off-putting that even the Simpsons has regularly used them as the butt of jokes:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pe6Ol5kO0Ks?si=LXikLwww792dapv-

I have a sibling who decided to leave our church (Mormon) and became a Unitarian because he wanted to still be ostensibly Christian to not completely alienate my parents (or at least that's my impression of why). Frankly I would have respected his decision more if he'd straight up come out as atheist or agnostic.

The Unitarian universalist church is basically "church for people who don't believe in God". It's also extremely liberal. As such, it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you mentioned looking for in your opening paragraph. Go to another church if you want to get away from "godless progressive" communities.

Is there a church for conservative people who don't believe in God?

Not quite sure how to parse "don't believe in God",

Prosperity gospel churches tend to be very light on the 'these sins are going to damn you to hell' stuff.

There is a Joel Osteen XM radio station if you're interested in checking it out, your milage may very, but I often find listening to it improves my mood considerably.

Parse it as "the whole God thing is a bunch of hogwash"

I'd still recommend Osteen, simply from a philosophical prospective.

There is a sarcastic line about such people becoming Theologists. It’s true to some degree - it allows people to spend lots of time thinking about what God would be like if He exists without ever having to seriously opine on whether He does.

There is a sarcastic line about such people becoming Theologists.

This unironically is basically the primary argument of Al-Ghazali's famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) Incoherence of the Philosophers. He basically argues that all of the debating and mental masturbation by a lot of philosophers and theologists are thinly veiled covers for their atheism. He was mostly talking about Islam, but many of the same arguments can easily be applied to many Christian thinkers.

Oh, cool. I have never read any Islamic work but I know there’s stuff I’m missing, like the famous work on sabbiyah (?), the holding together of culture.

No, but there's plenty of megachurches(here's a hint- look for ones with extremely generic sounding names) that are a bit... loose about the requirement. Warning: very normie red or black tribe- that is, likely to be rather disappointing to a motteizean who's willing to call themselves an atheist. College football, extremely moderate pro or anti Trump politics, thirty minute sermon about being a good person with a Christian rock song, polo shirt for a dress code, lakehouse 'for the grandkids', BBQ and pickup trucks, not a lot of thought about philosophy.

Not that I'm aware of.

Yet! Growth mindset!

Last night, I listened to Carl Benjamin and Sam Hyde(!) independently wax poetic about the importance of Christianity and urge their listeners to go to church. Benjamin was explicit that he doesn't believe in God or Jesus at all, but considers Christianity culturally necessary. I have no idea what's going on with Hyde; I don't really follow him on the regular, but was really, really not expecting twenty minutes of commentary about God and his Church from my gold-standard sample of post-ironic schizo internet brainrot victim.

I've suspected for some time that Christianity would be making a resurgence; being a serious Christian it's sort of a required bet, but also it's seemed to me that the cultural wind has been in our favor more or less since the Woke offensive in 2014; Woke took over the way it did because the comfortable, decadent agnostic soft-nihilism that had pushed us out had pretty clearly transitioned into the "finding out" phase. Still, from my perspective, right-wing "Christianity And..." is no better than the left-wing variant.

my local Unitarian church

Can I be annoying Catholic for a second? Here's the general timeline of Christianity.

  • Christ upon death, entrusts Saint Peter with the formation of a church.

  • This church exists for about 400 years, doing philosophical work, being murdered by romans, and assembling the gospels

  • 400 years into it, they start calling some councils so that they can assemble a book which encompasses and explains their theology.

  • They assemble the bible

  • One thousand years later, and one thousand and five hundred years after Christ establishes a Church on Earth, a retarded autist named Martin Luther decides that he doesn't like the Church that Christ founded, and wants to start his own, with his own [stupid] philosophical beliefs at the center. Marty creates a lie about bible translations so that he can insert his own idea by "translating" the bible into German.

  • This effects of this are...negative. 500 years after this, we have the things you experienced.

tl;dr - you didn't go to a Church. You went to a weird narcissism cult that is wearing Church as a costume.

If you want to go to a Church, then go to a Church.

While you are certainly welcome to be annoying Catholic, you’re still supposed to follow the rules. This comment is combative enough to fall in the “more heat than light” category.

This is a very Catholic reading of history. Plenty of secular and most Protestant scholars would dispute the first part. Most secular and a few Protestants would dispute the second. And virtually all Protestants would dispute the fifth. It's a very disputed Catholic timeline. If everyone agreed on this everyone would be Catholic. Which I get you are, but it's kind of like outlining a timeline of history and saying and then God revealed the Holy Quran to his prophet Muhammed. It's not at all agreed upon outside of your faith tradition.

Of course, from the Orthodox perspective, the whole process starts with the Patriarchs of Rome starting to get big false ideas about their status as primus inter pares a number of centuries after Christ, schisming away from the Orthodox church, and Protestantism being a logical conclusion of the various theological issues spawning from that affair. "The Pope was the first Protestant".

This is of course disputed, both excommunicated each other at the same time and both claim apostolic tradition. If anything, the Catholic church is more stable and has more logical standing when it comes to apostolic tradition, since as of now it is even hard to say who exactly "ortobros" are. There are at least four permanent schisms within orthodoxy including two parallel patriarchates in both Antioch and Alexandria - which are not in communion with each other and thus their adherents are banned to receive sacraments between the churches. In fact it is quite messy to follow when which branch of orthodoxy separated itself from the others and for what reasons, it is almost like minoprotestantism in that sense.

The successive loss of the second and third Romes defaulted leadership back to Rome.

Saint Peter, the Protestant!

I obviously like my orthobros, but this is a major cope. Why did none of the bishops oppose the gospel of Mathew during the councils assembling the Bible? Why did they ask the pope for his blessing (in the colloquial sense) over their work?

By the 4th century, it was already established that the Pope had a leadership role different than the other bishops. It makes sense that at some point (1000 years after the church was founded and after it had become a major global power) that there would be people who would claim leadership of it, but for geopolitical reasons.

Again, I like the orthodox bros. They are cool, and I pray almost daily for reunification, but this claim is pretty ridiculous on its face. Was Jesus a Protestant too?

As a Protestant - obviously St. Peter was not a Protestant, but he was not Roman Catholic or Orthodox in any meaningful way either. Those distinctions did not exist in his day. He was a follower of Christ.

Now as it happens I think it's ahistorical nonsense to say that he was a pope or a bishop either, offices that did not exist in his day and which have been applied to him retroactively, but at any rate, St. Peter certainly did not think of himself in confessional terms that far postdate him. I would say that St. Peter was, in the proper sense, small-letter catholic, orthodox, and yes, protestant (that is, witnessing to the gospel), and that these denominational slapfights only embarrass those determined to engage in them.

You're assuming that the Bishop of Rome is actually Peter's successor is an established fact. Even though Linus and Clement are both mentioned in the Bible, they are never explicitly mentioned as Peter's successors, and no one identifies them as such until ~180 AD, 81 years after Clement's death.

a retarded autist named Martin Luther decides that he doesn't like the Church that Christ founded

That's not how it happened though. Luther didn't have a plan to destroy the Church or even leave it. He just had some issues with some stuff that representatives of the Church were doing (come on, selling indulgences? wtf is that?). And he voiced his objections. The Church refused to consider them and demanded he immediately declare himself complete idiot and prostrate himself before the Church, or be kicked out. Luther did not, and had been kicked out. Unlike many other people who crawled back on their knees or somehow dealt with it (or, if they could, installed their own Pope who overruled the last one, that happened once or twice) he did not just take it, but founded his own movement instead. Of course, the fact that there were a lot of powerful people around which weren't that happy with existing Church and its powers also helped a lot. Definitely however not what he planned from the start.

Many such cases btw - a person wants to improve the system from within, the system reacts harshly against him and pushes him out, he founds an alternative system which supplants the old one.

Stellula is, I would say, clearly not attempting any sort of good-faith or accurate account of history. It's just a generic boo light.

Frankly, as someone raised Protestant who has come right to the brink of becoming Catholic multiple times, it is the kind of graceless, vicious rhetoric that repels me from that tradition. The church is a community of grace, which should be marked by charity, gentleness, and peace. The best Catholics I have known model that, including every man or woman in holy orders I have met. I think Stellula does the Catholic Church a tremendous disservice, and ought to repent - for the Catholic Church's own sake!

My goodness even on the Motte Catholics are insufferable. I don't mean that mainly as a personal attack, that's my observation of every Catholic I encounter - an absolute arrogance and a tendency to twist things to support the required dogmas of the Roman church. I don't entirely blame you, since the church requires you to believe these things it's only natural to reason backwards from the dogmas to the evidence, but it's so frustrating to see here. Anyway:

  • Christ, after he returned from the grave, entrusted all of the apostles with spreading the gospel to all the nations. Peter had no unique status, indeed he was overruled by Paul, and in Acts James (the bishop of Jerusalem) clearly had the final word on disagreements. The raising up of Peter comes from much later in history when the bishop of Rome (the capital of the world at the time) sought to justify taking greater authority to himself.
  • The writings of the church fathers make it abundantly clear that the books that would be assembled into the new testament were generally accepted by the mid second century. Framing the council of Nicea as assembling the Bible is a false framing designed to push back against the authority of scripture, by pretending that its authority comes from the council rather than from scripture's nature as the word of God.
  • As to the reformation, I don't know if your nonsense even deserves the dignity of a response, but... The purpose of the reformation was to fix the errors that has risen in the church, primarily indulgences, only providing the eucharist once a year, and refusing to translate the bible so people could read it. Following from this, a whole mess of theologians identified areas of theology where the church had arguably erred. And so, the Roman church, being even then truly arrogant, decided to kick anyone out of the church who questioned them. Funny enough, in the 'counter reformation' the Catholics did in fact fix indulgences, start giving regular eucharist, and eventually supported bible translations too! Weird huh? Rome refuses to budge on the other theological issues because (and this is not a charicature) they think the church is perfect and can never have made a mistake. Of course the Orthodox (who also left because of the arrogance of the Pope) say the same about their church. It's only Protestants who believe that all these different churches can have true Christians within them - Catholics at the time of the reformation thought the Orthodox were all damned for not following the Pope.

Of the three main Christian branches, in my opinion Roman Catholicism is by far the least convincing, and its apologists by far the most annoying. Still love you guys though! I earnestly hope you will find comfort knowing that Christ's sacrifice has already justified you, and you don't need to do anything to earn his grace.

My goodness even on the Motte Catholics are insufferable. I don't mean that mainly as a personal attack, that's my observation of every Catholic I encounter - an absolute arrogance and a tendency to twist things to support the required dogmas of the Roman church.

For what it's worth, this is... not wholly consistently, but I would say overwhelmingly my experience of extremely-online-Catholics.

It is, blessed be God, not even remotely my experience of Catholics in the flesh and blood.

Same. If /r/catholicism was representative of what the average person in the Catholic Church was like, I would have walked away a long time ago. Thankfully, that is not the case and people I interact with in person in the church are kind, gracious people who are a pleasure to know.

Of the three main Christian branches, in my opinion Roman Catholicism is by far the least convincing, and its apologists by far the most annoying.

Interesting to note that miracles which can withstand scientific scrutiny are exclusively associated with Roman Catholicism.

This is backwards reasoning though. The only miracles that are investigated with scientific scrutiny are ones associated with the Catholic church, because a full investigation is required if a miracle is to be used as grounds for beatification. This is because Catholicism has a deep history of scholasticism and the supremacy of reason, where the other traditions tend to lean more towards mysticism. Not exclusively, but that's my understanding of the general trend.

Protestants don't scientifically investigate miracles to that level, period, although there are plenty reported. I would instinctively consider it almost sacrilegious to do so. Likewise with the Orthodox, and some of theirs have a similar level of attestation (look up e.g. Our Lady of Zeitoun). Could it be that... all Christians who pray to God can receive miracles?

It may be that poor orthodox organization leads to their miracles going uninvestigated, but there are also some high profile orthodox miracles which are confirmed fakes(eg thé Easter fire. Now thé odd pious fraud is not proof against, but there is AFAIK no counterbalancing from well-investigated phenomena.

Protestant miracles seem like a general mish mash, and in fact using the term ‘Protestant’ in such a way seems like a sin against proper argumentation. Y’all are a varied bunch- is there a branch/denomination/movement within Protestantism that has repeated verifiable miracles? Any equivalent to the blood of st Januarius or thé spring at Lourdes or the series of Eucharistic miracles?

Mormonism’s supernatural claims have been investigated and falsified. The golden tablets are, per their own internal investigation, gobbledygook.

I can only speak to my experience. I grew up Catholic and was part of the RCC until I was about 33, at which point I left for essentially non-denominational Protestantism. Not for a specific doctrinal reason, but because it's where God was drawing me. That's where I met my wife. Now we attend a Calvary Chapel, which is nominally non-denom but with its own specific distinctives.

In my entire time in the RCC, I never encountered anyone who had experienced a miracle (as far as I know, they may have just kept quiet about it). In contrast, in the evangelical world I hear quite often about miracles taking place in people's lives, healings, financial provision, frankly I consider my marriage a miracle but I won't go into the details that convince me of this. But if I were to suggest to someone at my church that we should bring in some scientists to prove these were miracles, they would (I think rightly) consider that ridiculous and sacrilegious. In the same way that doing a double-blind study to determine if prayer works at improving health outcomes is both ridiculous and sacrilegious. To quote Jesus quoting the OT: you shall not test the Lord your God.

Catholics just have a different mindset about these things. They want to understand everything. That's what leads to thinks like trans-substantiation (we have to know exactly how the Eucharist works, it can't be a mystery).

What you're referring to is what Catholics would probably call 'guardian angel stories', which nobody's going to investigate. 'My guardian angel got me this job interview or stopped a car accident or whatever'. Do evangelicals point out miracles that didn't happen to them, more than on the level of FOAF tales, like Catholics or Orthodox do?

That 'didn't happen to them'? Of course. I'm not sure what level of attestation you're looking for specifically.

Here's an interesting question. Do you consider gifts of the spirit to be miracles? Most Evangelicals believe that gifts like prophecy and speaking in tongues are still extant among the church, and I've heard pretty credible anecdotes of these gifts - for instance, a pastor at a conference spoke in tongues, but there was no interpreter so they all moved on, only for the Iranian bartender to come up afterwards and reveal the man had been praising God in Farsi (he ended up converting). That's the kind of miracles I hear about, multiply attested but still personal, and oriented towards people's salvation and faith. Maybe Catholic miracles are the same? I'm not entirely sure. Seeing a ghost, to me, wouldn't be something that reinforced my faith or built my relationship with God. I wonder if Hispanic populations are more likely to be moved by things like apparitions which is why they all seem to happen in Hispanic countries?

What miracles can withstand scientific scrutiny?

An incomplete list would start with the tilma of Juan Diego, thé healings associated with Lourdes, and the consistently similar Eucharistic miracles. There are lots and lots of others, these are just unusually well studied(and in some cases repeated) miracles.

The existence of the universe?

Exclusively associated with Catholicism?

Serves me right for replying from the raw comment feed.

Creation myths have a pretty terrible track record for scientific scrutiny.

If you’re suggesting that being unverifiable counts as “withstanding scrutiny,” then I have a bridge to sell you.

I'm saying the exietence of the universe will never be answerable by science. You can't get an answers for "why is there something rather than nothing" by looking at it from within the something.

It's not even a particularly controversial observation from what I understand.

Okay, sure. I still can’t see what that’s got to do with @2rafa’s request.

If I try to sell you a bridge, and I don’t allow you to see it, if I insist that it cannot be seen at all, I’m not withstanding your scrutiny. I’m avoiding it.

More comments

To my layman understanding of miracles there has to be an established understanding of a secular mechanism which is then defied by the alleged miracle. The existence of the universe does not match this because we have no established understanding of a secular mechanism according to which the universe couldn't (or could) exist.

Can that which encompasses all ever be extraordinary?

I don't think that this is the definition of "miracle" used by the Bible, or any other religious text, written before the scientific method was established.

Can that which encompasses all ever be extraordinary?

Isn't that literally what secular humanism was trying to sell as an alternative to religion?

Isn't that literally what secular humanism was trying to sell as an alternative to religion?

I do not think "you can't explain what is literally beyond known existence" is a criticism that destroys secular humanism.

More comments

And God said, "Let there be a Big Bang."

"Let there be several Big Bang."

according with recent Webb observations

James (the bishop of Jerusalem) clearly had the final word on disagreements

I earnestly hope you will find comfort knowing that Christ's sacrifice has already justified you, and you don't need to do anything to earn his grace

Catholics don't believe that grace is earned (and neither do Mormons), but that doesn't negate the need for works. James would heartily disagree with you as well, but I'm already quite familiar with the tortured exegesis Protestants use to disregard the blatantly explicit condemnation of sola fide provided by James:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

If good works are a natural result of having faith, then why don't the devils, whom James explicitly states believe, perform good works as a result?

Bonus question on an unrelated topic, the "priesthood of all believers" that many Protestants believe in: If Simon the magician in the book of Acts believed (as it explicitly said he did) then why didn't he automatically have the same power and authority as Peter and the rest of the apostles? Ditto for women who believe (I assume you're part of a denomination that does not have female clergy).

The devils don't have 'faith' my man. Faith is not 'belief in the mere fact of God's existence'. Which is James' whole point! His letter was to a specific congregation warning them against claiming to have faith but not actually following Jesus' commands. Your comment about the devils is actually pretty revealing, it indicates that you're working under or at least influenced by this false conception of faith == propositional belief.

I'm actually pretty well convinced that the Protestant 'sola fide' and the Catholic 'works + faith' are actually the same when properly understood - Catholics will be quick to clarify that although you 'need works' you also don't strictly need works for grace/salvation (as you yourself admitted), and Protestants obviously don't deny the letter of James. If James actually clearly refuted a proper understanding of sola fide I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed. Rather, I think the two conceptions are two sides of the same coin, which just have biases that cause them to fail in opposite directions. A Protestant could take sola fide to the extreme by saying 'I'm saved so I don't need to worry about my actions' which I guess you sort of see from certain casual Christian types (although I think it's pretty rare for a Protestant to think they don't need to do good deeds). Meanwhile many Catholics take works to the extreme by saying 'I'm a good person and I go to church so I'm going to heaven' while completely missing having any relationship with God. Protestants arrived at sola fide as a reaction to ritualism and legalism in the medieval church, i.e. the failure mode of the Catholic conception, but nowadays sola fide also has some pretty blatant failure modes. The gate is narrow that leads to eternal life.

On your last question I have no idea what you're asking. The apostles have more authority because Jesus gave them more authority. Not sure what that has to do with the priesthood of all believers, whatever you meant by that.

Anyway, God Bless and I hope you find this explanation useful!

This seems to misunderstand the concept of faith. Having faith in the Protestant conception isn’t merely believing that Jesus is lord but accepting and recognizing his lordship. The devils may understand that Jesus is lord but what makes them devils is that they reject his lordship. Indeed, the story of man’s fall is about lordship. God told man do not eat from the tree of good and evil. The tree stands for the ability to determine what is in fact good and what is evil. God keeps that for himself. The devil tempts eve to instead determine for herself what is good or evil (ie a rejection of god’s lordship).

Works is a natural outcome of following the kingship of Christ.

You do know that the average protestant megachurch might be bad, but it isn't this bad, right? Both white and black megachurches might de-emphasize literal belief in Christianity but they theoretically hold to it.

I feel im missing something with your links, could you help me understand the lie, and what his own idea was in your view?

Not OP but a common story told in Protestant circles is that the Catholic Church did not want the Bible translated into the common languages of the people so that they couldn't decide for themselves what to believe (or something along those lines). Reality is a bit more complicated (as per usual) and the simplified version of this story told by Protestants these days isn't accurate, and the existence of translations of the Bible into common languages long before Luther is clear evidence of this. Even the name of Saint Jerome's 4th century translation of the Bible into Latin, the Vulgate, is evidence of this (same etymology as vulgar, i.e. in the language of the commoners). Also widespread illiteracy and the high cost of books would have kept most people from reading the Bible even if there were translations available in their language.

That said, there is a certain kernel of truth to the story that Protestants tell. Certain translators (most notably William Tyndale and his English translation) were persecuted by the church because their choices in translation undermined certain doctrines of the church, etc. So the church definitely wanted to exert control over who was allowed to translate the Bible and how they were allowed to translate it.

Martin Luther claimed that the church was intentionally making the bible difficult for local people to read in their own language. The purpose of this lie was so that he could create his own "interpretation".

Luther did not believe in free will. One "fix" he added to the bible was in Romans 3:28.

“So we hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone.”

The previously accepted translation was:

“For we hold that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.”

Oh boy I love a good debate about bible translations.

Even taking what you said as true, could you point to a place where luthers translation was actually meaningfully wrong? Preferably in the direction you claim he wanted to push.

Here's a bunch of nerds discussing it in depth:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5593/is-it-true-that-luther-intentionally-mistranslated-romans-328

The one caveat I'll give is that most of the answers seem to be from Protestants who seem to mostly agree with Luther's decision. That said, one of the answers directly quotes Luther himself talking about the controversy over his translation, so that was quite interesting to read.

Edit: For what it's worth, members of my faith (Mormon) largely agree with the Catholic interpretation of the verse, and with Catholics about the need for works in addition to faith.

So would Bonhoeffer who famously was not Catholic.

I'm sure anybody with time can run circles around me going toe to toe about Bible translations.

But this is kindof the difference between Catholics and Protestants. We don't worship a book, we're trying to live good, Christian lives. While Protestants will get obsessive about bible translations, Catholics get more obsessive about the meaning implied.

That all said, I think the broad strokes of the reformation and the early church are pretty obvious. Ironically, it's access to information (the internet) which will likely end Luther's work.

But this is kindof the difference between Catholics and Protestants. We don't worship a book, we're trying to live good, Christian lives. While Protestants will get obsessive about bible translations, Catholics get more obsessive about the meaning implied.

This is pretty much what Protestants say about Catholics in reverse, though the charge is not that Catholics "worship a book" but rather they "worship a Church/the Pope" while Protestants worship Christ.

Fwiw I don't think either criticism is particularly made in good faith, but seeing Catholics and Protestants going at each other about who's really Christian is always bemusing to us nonbelievers.

Well yes Catholics would say that we have access to more, we have the Bible, but also we have the Church which was founded by Christ himself.

The claim that Protestants worship the Bible is based on the idea that they seem to hold the words in the book at a higher relevance than what they actually say, or what Jesus actually did or said.

(Snark snark)

I'm starting to develop some sympathy for this view of the Reformation. But what do you make of the Schism?

The schism maintained the concept of a Church.

The reformation basically threw out 1500 years of philosophy in favor of "vibes" and "sola scriptura" (which is the idea that all of Christian philosophy can be derived from The Bible itself and idea which is on it's face stupid due to the fact that it was only assembled 400 years after the Church was founded).

EOs and Catholics are bros. There's a reason why you see the Ecumenical Patriarch and The Pope together so frequently.

...have you read any of the Reformers? I have no idea how you read Luther or Calvin and conclude that they "basically threw out 1500 years of philosophy" when they so enthusiastically read and cited the Church Fathers.

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord
is laid for your faith in his excellent word
what more can he say than to you he hath said
you whom unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed
I, I am thy God and will still give thee aid
I'll strengthen thee, help thee and cause thee to stand
All sheltered by mine own omnipotent hand.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats