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 -
Well, I'd say neither. The NT at least was written by the Church for the Church and meant to be interpreted within the Church and its living tradition. C.f. 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Re: the rest, I don't think it's fundamentally possible to write any text such that e.g. someone from a culture which intentionally raises people to be hostile towards and incapable of understanding that text, can be expected to receive it well and understand it. I think it would make sense to say that, even if the Bible were 'inspired, incorrupt, and infallible' (it's clearly not; indeed there is no one 'Bible' in the first place), it would be reasonable to expect some degree of contextual literacy and adoption of the mindset of its authors to be intelligible. Otherwise the claim is that someone raised to believe 'down' means 'up' should instantly be able to understand that the text means what it means.
And at that point you're essentially arguing that the text on the page should flow or shift around to become intelligible to people who don't even speak the language; who perhaps can't even read; who perhaps are blind and deaf and can't even hear it spoken.
That this seems like a tall order isn't pertinent in the context of (alleged) divine action. We even see something like that described at Pentecost! But I think it more appropriate, and instructive, to notice that Christians throughout history have never held such expectations for the Bible, up until the Reformation at least, which is indeed a point against that movement.
See also Acts 8:26-35. And in that light, the only thing crazier than a non-Christian who insists the Bible fails on its merits because it's not immediately-intelligible to the uninitiated, is a Protestant who insists that it is, actually.
More options
Context Copy link