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 -
For Christians, does the New Law not fulfill and surpass the Old Law? Do Christians Zionists abstain from shellfish and pork?
You don't need to go into new law/old law. the old law itself is incompatible with SS's claims.
The Old Law: if you don't properly worship Yahweh (symbolically representative of Jews) you are cursed. And if you do properly worship Yahweh (Jews) you will be blessed. I can hear my own political representatives restate that framework to curse their own race and nation for turning against Israel.
Leviticus 26 is Yahweh telling the jews that if they fail to obey him, he will punish them grievously. Your model is that worship of Yahweh requires worship of the jews, but Leviticus 26 demonstrates that Yahweh himself states that the Jews suffering under a curse is part of his will. Why should I as a Christian commit to protecting Israel if God himself has stated it is his will that they not be protected?
In Genesis God promises Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse".
Both Huckabee and Carlson believe Yahweh made this promise, but only Christian Zionists take this seriously. How could you believe in the bible and not take that seriously? Carlson says "Oh I, uh, don't curse Israel because Gold told me not too, I just don't think Netanyahu is a real Jew or Israel is the Israel mentioned by God." He is pigeon-holed into this anti-semitic canards that don't get to the truth of it: that is hostile foreign propaganda-myth, it's not true. Don't believe it, because if you believe it you are being manipulated into doing someone else's bidding for their own benefit and not yours. Huckabee and Ted Cruz believe it, Carlson believes it but he just suffers cognitive dissonance trying to square it with his own newfound antisemitism.
It's pretty straightforward in the NT that the meaning of Israel is superseded by the Church.
Which branch of Christianity professes this? Not Catholicism, certainly not Protestantism. They believe the NT extended salvation, not that the nation of Israel was abolished or that the Gentiles are now among the nation of Israel.
Even if some Christian believes that, just imaging the cognitive dissonance: "I don't like or support Israel because they are claiming to be Israel but are not, I am Israel now, I am the real Jew- not Netanyahu." Even if you believed that, you are just operating in this little universe that shrouds your perception of what is going on here.
Most.
Roman Catholic - Historically supersessionist, but Vatican II muddied the waters. Officially says God's covenant with Jews isn't revoked, yet the older framework lingers.
Eastern Orthodox - Most consistently supersessionist major tradition. No formal revision has ever occurred.
Confessional Reformed/Presbyterian - Covenant theology functionally requires it, though the confessions don't use the term.
Confessional Lutheran - Law/Gospel hermeneutic produces the same conclusions through a different route.
Classical Anglican - Historically assumed it, but modern Anglicanism is too diverse to enforce much of anything.
The important caveat is that "supersessionism" as a named category is largely a modern critical label, not language these traditions used about themselves. Most would have simply said the Church is Israel fulfilled, without framing it as "replacing" anything.
Have you been hanging out with Pentecostals and Baptists?
I wouldn't say Vatican II muddied the waters as much as it did establish dual path to salvation, not providing any logical justification other than "it's a divine mystery why the Jews are saved in spite of Jesus's words." And many Catholics are simply in denial of the new Church doctrine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link