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 -
Nothing you did in your edgy teenage atheist phase is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Final impenitence, that is, dying without repenting, is the only way someone can permanently reject the Holy Spirit.
Seriously, God is more thoughtful than edgy teenage atheists.
Also, I don’t know if someone told you this directly or if you picked it up somewhere, but this is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of Christianity. Even diehard predestination Calvinists don’t believe this. The offer of salvation is always open to everyone.
Anyways, I personally hope you return to the Church one day, but whatever you do with your spiritual life, at least don’t go through your temporal life thinking edgy teenagers found the One Weird Trick.
Sure, but a plain reading of the verse that describes it and its surrounding context is still highly infohazardous to Christians, especially the kinds that actually read Scripture. And then we get the "don't worry about it, it's basically an inkblot" dismissal of the argument which is even worse.
Ironically the reason why it's so hazardous is because what the verse [is argued to] say here is already so solidified in our own cultural context (and has been for the past... millennium, maybe two?) that even the non-believers are aware of "dying unrepentant means you go to Hell." It's everywhere in their memes, too.
And sure, we can say "obviously this wasn't common knowledge in Jesus' time, so that's why He had to say that", but that realization is very much not obvious (especially on first encounter with that information and the... corresponding mental states it tends to leave one in).
Or at least, that's the claim being made here. The Church doesn't [know to] just lead with that and "don't worry just forget about it" has a moral hazard in it too. That is, from extensive personal experience, detrimental.
More options
Context Copy link
I am not a Christian, and I am a practicing member of a faith that has a very different view of the world than Christianity - I'm as likely to return to the Church as a buddhist monk and have in fact permanently rejected the call of the Christian holy spirit. I'm aware that there's a more expansive definition, but I still actually meet it - Christianity just doesn't reach me, and my own experiences with religion don't fit into the Christian worldview.
I understand what you’re saying, and I obviously feel similarly about Buddhism. Such is life.
But what I’m saying is that you are intellectually wrong about the dogma. You can’t have committed this sin or meet any definition for it because you’re not dead yet.
If you come from a Christian tradition that was super literal about this, okay, just know they are in the minority here and I would be very interested in what their actual dogma said, as opposed to just a rando (such as myself), opining.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. That entire reply was cosmologically incoherent and probably facetious: if Christianity is true, then no other faith’s afterlife even exists, nor do their rules apply.
As for blasphemy, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain”, the actual commandment against blasphemy, is not about hitting your knee and using God’s, Jesus’, or the Holy Spirit’s name as a profanity. (Though doing so is unhealthy to the psyche.) The better way to read it is “don’t claim to be authorized by God,” which is why false prophecy carried a death sentence in BC Israel.
An intriguing and sobering clue to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: “You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Fool (raqa)!’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You moron (morē)!’ will be subject to hellfire.” (Matthew 5:21-22, HCSB)
This detailed scholarly analysis of insults in the cultural mileu in which Jesus taught His disciples summarizes Jesus’ likely intended meaning thus:
In other words, a dismissive or dehumanizing attitude toward someone you’re angry with is what becomes a danger to the soul’s destination. This means social media is a moral hazard and Christians should be extra wary about opining online. And calling someone a retard is a highway to Hell.
Interesting that The Motte itself moderates along these guidelines! Claim that someone’s wrong using detailed rebuttals all you want, but hurling insults and dehumanizing your rhetorical opponents is subject to immediate moderation or bans.
I am very suspicious of a Jew trying to tell Christians what Jesus akshually meant.
Nevertheless, no argument here.
This just adds to my expectation that I’ll have a lot of time to really get to know purgatory on a personal level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link