site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9135 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Upon further consideration I have decided to become more extreme in my religious beliefs"

This is me. In college I was an edgy libertarian who thought the Wicca creed of "though it harm none, do as you will" was the height of wisdom. As I've matured, it has become clear that certain ways of being are simply better. And then I came (returned, really) to Christ which has increasingly made me a radical in the eyes of the secular world.

Just last night, in fact, I was approached by my senior pastor about taking a teaching role at my church, with the idea that I would eventually take his job. So I've got a lot of thinking to do about many of these issues, and how to address them in a compassionate but biblical way from the pulpit. My pastor says he was advised, for instance, to never teach the book of Romans, because when you teach Romans 1 (which condemns homosexuality among other things) you will lose half your congregation. He teaches it anyway :) This may not be that relevant to you all or to the discussion but I just wanted to share.

My feeling is anyone who would split with a church over a plain reading of the Bible isn’t really Christian enough to be worth catering to. In short, they place their own opinions above all else and would likely leave over some other issue anyway. So I’d say ignore them and teach what the bible says, and the traditions as they existed. If it makes people uncomfortable good, they needed to hear it.

I'm with you in theory. However in practice many people have beliefs that are influenced by secular culture, so I think it's important to have a considered approach when you introduce ideas that people may struggle with.

The other pastor who gave the advice not to teach Romans has had a lot of success growing his church, while the church I attend has stayed quite small. But I actually left that larger church for this smaller one partly because of lack of depth in the teaching. So, what's more important - reaching more people with the basic gospel message of salvation, or tending to a smaller group of more devoted faithful? I don't think there's an obvious answer. Probably we need both. "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it." 1 Cor 3:2 - Lots of infants in Christ out there nowadays!

What does it mean to "not be Christian enough"? This sounds more like a political division than the faith that all are saved if they follow Jesus Christ.

Well, what does 'follow Jesus Christ' mean, then? Ignore everything he said but think fondly of the nicer parts?

Well, that's the whole question, isn't it?

Matthew probably captures the historical Jesus's message best. Follow the Law more righteously than the scribes and Pharisees, in preparation for the imminent kingdom. The trouble is that he was talking almost exclusively to other Jews, and never makes it clear what he expects from Gentiles.

If you are teaching Romans 1 after teaching Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 on biblical gender roles and the numerous passages (including the Gospels) on the indissolubility of Christian marriage, I doubt you will lose any additional congregants that you haven't already lost.

If you are teaching Romans 1 before teaching those passages, that is probably the wrong order given the relative damage different sexual sins are doing in today's society.

If someone were to teach Romans 1 without teaching those passages, I would assume that they don't actually care about biblical sexual morality and are just a homophobe or a grifter appealing to homophobes.

Romans isn't an obscure book of the Bible, and the first chapter is typically where one would start.

That's good advice. I attend a Calvary Chapel where we teach the Bible chapter by chapter, so the order is somewhat pre-determined. However, I agree that this is the sort of context that needs to be brought in as part of that teaching to avoid coming across as crassly homophobic.

The student evangelical group that almost* managed to convert me taught Ephesians first after the Gospel - the official reason given was that it is the most important of the Epistles if you want to learn quickly how to live a Christian life.

But in any case, you need to ram home the message that God is not a hippie. I suppose hitting Romans 1 immediately after the Gospel and Acts is actually a reasonable way of doing it. In today's society, the "order and hierarchy is good actually" message of Ephesians 4-6 is probably even more countercultural than Romans 1, and "God does not provide an easy remedy in this world for abuse of secular authority" definitely is.

* It wasn't the social conservatism that put me off. It may have been the "low church" character of the group (such that Catholics would have had a better chance) but I think ultimately I am the kind of person who struggles to believe in the supernatural given the world now makes sense without it.

I am the kind of person who struggles to believe in the supernatural given the world now makes sense without it.

You might be interested to know, then, that the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is fairly recent, artificial, and peculiarly Western. In Orthodox Christian theology we see the whole concept as a tragic, and frankly idiotic, mistake.

But also I've gotta disagree. The world makes no sense no matter how I look at it. The concept of The God is great for filling in gaps, such as how the material universe exists at all or how we're conscious, but opens up a lot more questions. Take that away though and I'm fairly puzzled by those things, plus why there are physical laws, etc. in the first place.

I think an important question is whether there is such a thing as objective 'good' and, if so, what that is and how we might know. 'Natural' explanations obviously can't touch this, and I don't see how life can be lived without it.

I think ultimately I am the kind of person who struggles to believe in the supernatural given the world now makes sense without it.

I am right there with you! I struggle to accept when people at my church attribute God's intervention to things that could have happened naturally. But then when I take the inside view on my own life it seems clear that turning and following God had tangible effects, and that things often line up in ways that indicate a guiding hand at work. That includes what I consider an actual miracle: how I met my wife. A story that, when I tell it to others, seems unremarkable!

I think that's the nature of the beast, that another's testimony is insufficient evidence to sway a skeptic, yet may be all the evidence that person needed. Or to put it another way, you won't see the evidence of God's work in your life until you start a relationship with him. I know that sounds like a recipe for self-deception, but it also lines up with my limited understanding of divine hiddenness. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats