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 -
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XS7itdfgNnU
Over the weekend, an interview between Tucker Carlson and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has been making the rounds. The general thrust of the Interview is: Mike Huckabee is something called a "Christian Zionist", that is:
Steelman: An evangelical protestant Christian who recognizes the unique place in history and theology that The Jewish people occupy, and recognizes that Israel has a Right to Exist.
Strawman: An evangelical protestant Christian who worships the Jews as the main character of history and society, and sees the rest of the world as second-tier citizens who exist to support the work of Jewish people.
The interview attempts to answer what Christian zionism is, what Mike Huckabee believes, etc.
After listening to this, it seems as though Mike is not doing a great job of hiding the fact that he is closer to the strawman than the steelman on this one. Some points:
Huckabee hosted a meeting with Johnathan Pollard, an Israeli who stole US state secrets and sold them to Israel, and subsequently Russia during the cold war. Pollard currently lives in Israel, and Huckabee has been criticized for hosting a meeting with him.
Israel is currently a safe haven for sex criminals (or accused sex criminals). There is a not-insignificant number of men who have been charged with sex crimes in the US, who flee to Israel, and are protected by the Israeli government from extradition to the US. Or more specifically: the US simply ignores these people once they are safely in Israel. Tucker confronts Huckabee about this.
There are a few other things like this, Tucker also asserts that the Iraq war was done on behalf of Israel. The entire interview is quite spicy, and I recommend listening to it.
The "money" quote, however, is one where Tucker is pressing Huckabee on what Israel is, what "a right to exist" is, and what the borders that Israel is entitled to are. Tucker quotes the bible passage that Huckabee is citing to justify Israel's ownership, and points out that the land indicated in the passage is substantially larger than the land Israel currently claims. Tucker's question is, essentially: "if Israel has a right to the land they currently occupy due to this Bible passage, then don't they actually have a right to a majority of the entire Middle East, due to the same Bible passage"
Huckabee's response is, essentially: yes they do. If they want to take it, then that would be fine.
Hard to overstate what a big deal this has been over the weekend. This undermines 30 years of US foreign policy with regards to the ME, and vindicates every fear that every ME nation has had with regards to their own defense, their desire for a nuclear weapon, etc. It's my opinion that this is bad enough that Huckabee needs to be very publicly fired immediately, and that a lot of reassurance needs to be made to these other countries that Huckabee is essentially in a cult, that his insane beliefs do not in ANY way represent the beliefs of the broader US government, and that we will never allow another member of his cult into any position of power within the US government.
The problem: none of that is true. Yes, from my perspective (a Catholic) Huckabee is in an insane, anti-christian cult with absolutely insane beliefs. My (somewhat unrelated) point is that this is why you need The Church. But there are plenty of people in The US Government who think this way. Ted Cruz is another one, who was also interviewed, also disastrously, by Tucker.
Where this, the Cruz interview, and the general discourse around Israel is heading is: what is Israel, exactly? Why does the US support them so much? What was the Iraq war, actually? If we are really using The Bible to dictate foreign policy, then what implications does that have? (I don't think the bible at all supports Huckabee's idea here, btw. I think this is Zionists essentially preying on a very specific type of protestant)
You even undersell the depth of Jonathan Pollard's betrayal, who was one of the most damaging spies in US history. Pollard's professed motive was that he believed the US wasn't doing enough for Israel. Huckabee meeting with Pollard is a feature not a bug, as Huckabee's worship of Jews is the fundamental job requirement for his US government position.
The most unfortunate part is that what you call the "strawman" of Christian Zionism is actually the only internally coherent position a Christian can hold... like, don't you believe the Bible is divinely and literally true? It's a fatal flaw in the Christian blockchain that the Torah really does reduce to race worship of Jews symbolically represented by their tribal god Yahweh, like Zeus was a tribal god representing the European tribes worshipped by him. I don't see how you could believe the Old Testament and also not agree with Huckabee's perspective.
I understand where HUCKABEE is coming from, it's Tucker Carlson who pussyfoots without saying what he actually means. Is Carlson saying that Yahweh did not promise the land to the Jews? Or is he saying that Yahweh did, but for diplomatic reasons we shouldn't acknowledge it? Why doesn't Carlson then just say "I agree with you but we shouldn't say it out loud because it's not politically expedient", why act shocked if he believes it as well? The best I can infer is that Carlson is saying Yahweh did promise the land to the Jews but the Israelis are not Jews- although he does not say that directly, he makes the argument indirectly by saying "Netanyahu came from Europe."
Carlson incessantly says we can't criticize Jews collectively for their collective behavior, but his approach to antisemitism is a critique of literature he himself claims to hold is true.
I grew up Christian, I understand well the dynamics and how going to a Catholic church is not even close to the same as a sermon from Mike Huckabee. But are you really equipped to challenge Huckabee when he clearly has the bible on his side and you believe the bible as well?
The real problem is that your "strawman" of Christian Zionism is internally coherent within Christianity, and it's actually the Christian antisemitism professed by Carlson that's incoherent.
With that said, for all of Carlson's denials that he is antisemitic he has put himself in a very dangerous position, he has put himself squarely in that camp and none of his meager qualifications or groveling "I hate Rome too because they killed Jews, I'm not antisemitic!" is going to work. I don't understand Carlson's motives. He is either Red Pilled and trying to subversively promote anti-semitism or he's just trying to gain market share from the surge in anti-semitism among young audiences. If it's the latter he's going to have a Come to Jesus moment very soon, if it's the former then he's just demonstrating how Christianity is a blocker from properly engaging that tribe.
Yahweh didn't promise anything to the Jews, Yahweh is literary fiction- ancient capeshit, and the bible is Jewish race propaganda. That's a hard pill to swallow as a long time former Christian myself, but watching the "Carlson vs Huckabee dialectic" on the eve of another major war for Israel just shows how the Christian perspective is unable to grapple with the forces we are dealing with, it is captured by the Torah on both the anti-semitic and philo-semitic side of the debate.
For Christians, does the New Law not fulfill and surpass the Old Law? Do Christians Zionists abstain from shellfish and pork?
Christians claim thew New Law represents the "completion" of the Old Law. But no branch of Christianity claims the New Law supplanted the Mosaic covenant. Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the law, and Christian doctrine is that the First Covenant is living and they are outside of it.
The New Law actually was a practical mechanism for bringing Gentiles in the fold of Yahweh. Conversion would be quite difficult if you demanded they get circumcised and are unable to eat their traditional diet or at the tables of their pagan neighbors. It was Paul's innovation of the New Law that allowed Christianity to flourish.
But Christians believe in the Mosaic Covenant and the Abrahamic covenant. Huckabee is the one that treats these seriously, Carlson is the one that doesn't present a coherent position rooted in the bible and instead just balks.
It seems like it was Jesus' wish as well:
English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Mt 21:33–41.
English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Mt 21:43–44.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. When something is fulfilled, is it still happening or is it over?
-Collins English Dictionary
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
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