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 -
Was it mentioned in Pact/Pale at all that gods need belief? Sounds like they gain power from acts of worship, particularly ones that sacrifice something or give them claim over something (a mark on the body, for example).
Based on the knowledge on Pactverse gods and the divine practices shared in the story, I'm led to believe that the vastness of Abrahamic religions works against their God(s). "I am what I am", what kind of definition is that? Here on this forum, when that kind of definition is applied to the concept of a woman, people laugh it out of the room.
IMO it's implied that pretty much everyone (god or not) is made stronger by others' belief, but yeah, you can probably have a god without that.
That's not a definition, that's a name. And it's not "I am what I am", it's "I am that I Am", as in "I am the great I Am".
I could believe that vastness works against there being a coherent God, but 1) this applies to all gods--for instance are the Greek and Roman versions of a god two separate entities? and 2) in-universe if this were much of a threat then the one true God would have shut it down rather than risk being fractured or having his power diluted.
More important than either of these objections, though--why are people Christians at all if there's no god behind it? That's an enormous open market for plenty of other gods who can easily work small miracles to get people to worship them instead.
Seems so. There are apparently numerous apocryphal offshoots of someone like Prometheus, one of which is Ulysse's patron.
That's assuming he existed.
Whatever Others facilitate the existence of Christianity as a religion among the Innocent, it doesn't have to be one Other and it doesn't have to be a god.
Yes, assuming he existed seems much safer than any other assumption, given all the other gods.
It doesn't matter how Christianity got started. Now that it's around, either it has an actual basis, or there's a market opening for a god to come in and impersonate God. I suppose you could postulate some secret organization preventing that from happening, but there are still other issues with that, and overall it seems a lot safer and more accurate to just say "yeah the author just hasn't sufficiently addressed this point."
Why? The big God is clearly categorically different from pagan-tier gods, as his followers insist. Omnipotent, omnipresent etc. I can assume the Canaanite war god Yahweh existed, but assuming the monotheistic God existed (at least in the way Christianity describes him) is a bigger stretch.
Many Others, even those who are not actual demons, apparently abuse devilish aesthetics. Presumably there are impersonators. It would take some enormous feet to fill God's boots, though, so I'm not surprised that none of them are bigger than small sect patrons.
I don't blame Wildbow for neglecting delving into Christian representation, because I don't find it interesting. Western culture is already suffused with Christianity enough.
Because this is how all the other gods work, obviously. You need QUITE a strong justification to argue that the Christian god follows other rules than any other god, especially considering that you also have to justify why Christianity grew more than any other religion despite being the only one without a god.
OK, but at the very least there were plenty of Christian pagans who did believe in the big God but also believed in other gods. Even under the following baseless assumptions:
Believing in a more universal god for some reason doesn't create that god
Gods don't actually help their religions grow at all
No god, incarnation, or other entity can impersonate God
you still run into issues because at the very least these Christian pagans are still around and would be providing a non-universal version of God quite a lot of power, possibly enough for him to be able to tap into the broader Christian power source.
That's all I need! I don't even care whether God exists in-story, my gripe is that faith in him doesn't work where all the logic of the book says it should. There should be plenty of Christian sects worshipping impersonator gods and gaining power thereby.
Like a certain deity evoking imagery of nails, blood and three-fingered gestures?
Are you seriously claiming that Maricica impersonated the Christian God in a way at all relevant to what we're talking about?
No, she doesn't quite have enough desire or similarity for that. But I found it a funny set of minor parallels.
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