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 -
Jesus's parable of the rejection of the son of god is playing on preexisting themes from ancient Greek theater. Here is wikipedia's summary of Euripides The Bacchae (405 BC):
So the son of Zeus appears as man as a character in the play, tries to introduce Dionysian rites into the city, gets his divinity rejected by the local elite, the elite get slaughtered by intoxicated female cult-followers. Dionysus was the god of wine, and Jesus's first miracle is turning water into wine.
Two months ago, Israel hosted an "army" of 1,000 pastors to "Support Israel, Combat Antisemitism". CBN News provided some coverage/summary in a short 4 minute video.
The Christian Broadcasting Network was founded by Pat Roberson, and their channel has 2.7 million subscribers.
The whole video is worth a watch, because if you watch the video you will see the core theme, the message being sent to the pastors, is that God does not renege on his promises. Esoterically that sends the signals to the pastors that they owe their allegiance to Israel. But the CBN anchor also emphasizes that as a takeaway in his short monologue summary of the "lessons" from this summit:
Although the emphasis is distinctly evangelical, the actual message is consistent with Catholic Doctrine as well.
The New Law did not abolish the old covenants, it was a practical set of compromises to enable the diffusion of Christianity created by Paul, not Jesus.
If you squint you can kind of see a reference but this is a huge stretch. The only thing that seems the same is the "undercover boss" concept? But this is hardly the only example of such even in Greek mythology.
There's enough symbolism involving wine in the Old Testament, like with Melchizedek, the fact that other surrounding pantheons had gods of wine isn't surprising.
Meanwhile, the parable is an exact reference to Isaiah, the part of Isaiah dating to the 8th century BCE:
English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Is 5:1–6.
I assume Jesus was more familiar with Isaiah than Dionysus in his earthly life.
I agree a lot with what you quoted from Pat Roberson, except for the idea that "Paul states plainly that all Israel will be saved." That relies on a typical Protestant misreading of Paul and Salvation.
I did not say abolish, Jesus said fulfilled. If you do not recognize the difference between the two words then I don't know how much further we can go here.
I tend to agree with Joe Heshmeyer here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tVl5FgXNbws?si=10HXwZshfSsDc8Zr.
Basically, Judaism is special compared with other religions in that they actually received Special Revelation from God. All religions have some kind of revelation of God through their conscience, reason, and the witness of creation. But God revealed Himself more profoundly in the Old Testament, and the Jewish people today still have access to that special revelation.
Does the old covenant save? There were elements of the Mosaic law that were Preparatory for the Messiah and now the Messiah has come. Those are fulfilled you don't need to observe them and in fact observing them now may be a sign of a lack of fidelity. It maybe a sign that you don't really believe the Messiah has come.
Acts 4:12 says that there is no salvation except through Jesus. In Genesis God tells Abraham that He has made him "a father of many nations." Gentiles are also children of Abraham. The Biblical answer is not that the Jews and the Gentiles are saved though separate means. Nor is it that the Jews are saved by biology. Rather that Jews and Christians are both saved through faith in the one God. Someone who has the Faith of Abraham is the son of Abraham. Christian salvation is tied to Jewish history, however there is no religious pressing need for Jews to have possession of the territory of Israel.
They had a god of wine who took human form and visits Thebes claiming to be the son of Zeus, performs miracles, but is rejected by the King who is then torn asunder for denial of the son's divinity.
The NT has a god who takes human form, turns water into wine, visits Jerusalem claiming to be son of Yahweh, gets rejected by the pharisees, and the divine punishment of the pharisees is prophesized in the parables. It's more than an incidental similarity.
In the Bacchae Dionysus escapes prison through a divinely summoned earthquake, in Acts Paul and Silas escape prison from a divinely summoned earthquake, and Jesus's resurrection is associated with a divine earthquake in which Jesus escapes from his tomb.
Ancient Dionysian rites entailed followers consuming the essence of their god:
The entire NT was originally written in Greek, I would assume the writers were familiar with myths from the Greek Dionysia.
Esau was a child of Abraham, and his divine inheritance was swindled by Jacob. The early Rabbis associated the descendants of Esau with the nation of Rome.
The parallels with Greek stories would be more intriguing if there weren't the same allusions/foreshadowing from the Hebrew Scriptures which were written earlier than the Greek Stories.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link