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 -
In the time of Christ and the early Church, the key neighbors in question were the Romans who tried and failed across the next >350 years to torture, rape and murder Christianity out of existence. It wasn't be nice to your immediate neighbors, everybody does that, it was show love to the men leading you to the pyre. If purely for reasons of history and epistemic hygiene, should your primary understanding of Christianity have come from American Scripturalists and the modern atheism they spawned, you are lacking 1800 years of empirical record.
In the US, which means far more in Europe, 83% of employees of such charities are either atheists, members other religions, or cultural Catholics excommunicated latae sententiae. This is irrelevant, though, because none of these charities could operate without the prevailing interest of their governments in overseeing demographic replacement. There is the point that the government gives charities large amounts of money and the charities give it back to favored politicians, but the charity industry is the domain of leftists and there are expressly nonreligious charities doing the same work. Regardless of that, it is, also, not as though charities are the bottleneck. Demographic replacement is top-down, charities, any charity, may influence where foreigners are finally placed once in a country and the privileges they enjoy, but those foreigners would be in the country regardless, because that's what power wants. Everything else is set dressing.
"We need more cruelty." How do you think we got here? It wasn't a superabundance of love. In cruelty we destroyed the structures that could support such people and standing in the wreckage we say now tear them apart in the womb.
There are verses that call for cooperation with and forgiveness of state authorities, though they may be oppressive.
But, in the time of Jesus or at least the writing of the Gospels, it's just as if not more likely that it meant Jews, actual neighbors who persecuted Christians who tried to stay in the same communities. Paul admits he tried to destroy the Church and he likely wasn't the only one. It's dubious if the Romans recognized it as anything other than a cult led by a rabble rouser.
I don't think you're wrong about the Jews as primary antagonists, at least up to the destruction of the Second Temple. Still, by 70 AD, Peter and Paul had been martyred by Rome. We also see a certain prototype in the Passion account. Jesus asks forgiveness for the Roman soldiers, and now in the nearly 2000 years of martyrs since, where we have their last words, we at least very often read of them forgiving and asking forgiveness for their murderers.
More options
Context Copy link
The first historical pagan reference to Christianity is from ~112 CE by Pliny the Younger, governor of northern Turkey, asking the Emperor his advice on dealing with recalcitrant Christians. Suetonius also mentions Jewish riots in Rome during the reign of Claudius instigated by a man named "Chrestus" (possibly Christ), which resulted in their expulsion. Tacitus famously describes how Nero fed Christians to the lions after burning Rome.
The Roman problem with Christians was that they refused to participate in local and state cultic sacrifices, which was the kind of thing that brought disasters and plagues and general suffering from the gods. Unlike Judaism, Christianity was also obviously a new religion, so it didn't get any respect for being ancient. Also, the Romans thought they were getting up to weird stuff in their private sessions, like having giant orgies and eating babies.
Rome didn't really have a formal criminal system. The governor was basically allowed to do whatever he wanted in the name of keeping the peace. So Christianity was rarely "illegal", but they caused general disturbances and that led to persecution.
Technically true because Josephus doesn't call it Christianity, but Josephus writes about Jesus in around 93AD, saying that he was hailed as the Messiah and that he was executed by Pilate. This implies the existence of a group of people doing the hailing - i.e. Christians.
Josephus wasn't a pagan. The flavian testimony is useful for confirming that Jesus was a real person and Pilate killed him. It doesn't tell us much about how Roman authorities viewed Christians though, which mostly appears to be as a minor annoyance.
More options
Context Copy link
The testimonium flavianum is a forgery: because a jew wouldn't have written that, because the paragraphs before and after flow better together without it in the middle, because Origen didn't know about it when, if it did exist at the time, he would have and because all surviving copies of the antiquities with it go through Eusebius who is coincidentally also the first one to use it.
I know there are recent attempts to rescue it but they are bullshit.
It's generally considered to be partially accurate with Christian interpolations ("He was the Christ", etc). Origen mentions, at least, the passage about James the brother of Jesus. Josephus's original passage on Jesus, with the theology stripped out, would not have been useful for apologetics, so it's unsurprising that no one mentioned it for a while.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Notice in this story that he didn't already know what to do and, iirc, was basically told by Trajan to not go looking for problems just handle them when they came up.
But you're right. I was thinking that the systematic persecutions came much later under Diocletian which long postdates the Gospel's likely dates (and that at the time of their writing the Romans were just hostile towards Jews in general and had no reason to pick apart their endless ideological debates*), which is true. But forgot about Nero's opportunistic behavior. That shows they were at least known and/or distrusted by pagans as well.
* Which explains some of their conciliatory gestures.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jews in the Bar Kochba Rebellion killed many Christians that refused to join them in the revolt against the Romans.
More options
Context Copy link
The most famous example Jesus used was a Samaritan, who were the Jews' outgroup.
Yeah some people here have a deranged understanding of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The 'neighbor' is a member of the hated outgroup, and not respected members of the ingroup.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"far more in Europe"? Is there a missing word there? I don't understand. Also your link doesn't look to me like it's supporting your assertion. It says "The study of campaign contributions from 2018 through February of this year showed that 83% went to Democratic candidates or political-action committees" the 83% is donating to a party, it doesn't say anything about their religious affiliation. I also followed the link at the top and searched for "atheist" and found no hits.
I could have clearly worded that better. Europe is more progressive than the US, so if we look at a field, such as NGOs in the US, and we find it dominated by progressives, then we should expect an even greater degree of progressive control of charities in Europe. But that's an issue, one of two here I've produced. The first is I am just assuming the European NGO employees are more progressive, and the second is the data references a study of American Catholic charity employees who donated to political causes. I didn't look further to check what percentage of employees donate, so 83% must be wrong, and really it's that 83% of those politically-active donate to leftist causes in the US. Helping women get abortions, which includes donating to and voting for pro-abortion politicians, also incurs automatic excommunication.
So in the studied Catholic NGOs, 83% of their politically active employees are either:
Atheists / Non-religious
Members of other faiths
Catholics who have excommunicated themselves
This isn't an argument about those non-practicing Catholics not being Catholic. They are still Catholic, and they are taught they will be judged more harshly for what they know. This is an argument against aspersing teachings because of the behaviors of people who do not follow those teachings. Is this a useful distinction? POSIWID and all? I think in some things it might not be useful, but here it is useful because it's the governments that are doing this, and they don't need charities to help.
This is a very fantastic interpretation of both canon law and of that statistic. Just to be clear, not even pro-abortion politicians are excommunicated.
I also looked more to that article, and it's sources and I'm starting to have doubts.
Almost a full third of all donations come from a single person, Wayne Paglieri, about whom they have this to say:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Religiosity is higher in US than Europe, so absent other considerations, if most US employees are essentially atheist or Non-Judgemental Therapeutic Deity then in Europe it will be more so.
Not quite sure that checks out - religion is more controversial in US than in Europe precisely because religiosity is higher, and South Europe is more Catholic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link