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 -
I didn't say it does. I showed what the Church believed for most of its history, which was your original claim («most educated Christians for most of history regarded the first 11 chapters of Genesis as myths»). The Fathers disagreed about which young date, so they were literalists regarding that who disagreed with each other.
That isn't what the decree says. Its list includes the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents, the command given to test them, the transgression at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent, the fall, and the promise of a Redeemer. «Woman made from man» is not «men and women are equal in dignity».
Pius XII doesn't make it a mere regulation. He gives the reason: polygenism can't be reconciled with «the sources of revealed truth» on original sin, «which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam». And the dogmatic formula you're asking for already exists, at Trent, Session V, canon 1: «If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted… let him be anathema» (Trent V). The current Catechism, §390: Genesis 3 «uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man» (CCC 390). So the allegory has a floor, and the floor is a historical first man and a historical first sin. That's my point: the Church reads Genesis allegorically only down to that floor.
Then he's an outlier. The Antiochenes (Diodore, Theodore of Mopsuestia) attacked Alexandrian allegory, and Augustine's book is titled On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.
Your own quotation makes my case: «in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Fathers». And the consultants weren't the end of it. On 5 March 1616 the Congregation of the Index, with the Pope's approval, banned Copernican books as teaching «the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture» (Galileo affair). In 1633 Galileo was sentenced as «vehemently suspected of heresy».
Joshua 10:13 («the sun stood still») and Ecclesiastes 1:5 are not songs, and they were the central texts. And it wasn't me who read the Psalms as cosmology. It was the Holy Office.
Maybe he did, but that's less consistent with catholicism than with gnosticism.
The finds since then (P104 in 1997, P137 in 2018) are scraps. The main revision since then, Nongbri's (God's Library, 2018), pushes the early papyri later, not earlier.
Yes, we can reconstruct *Ev only because Tertullian and Epiphanius quote it against their Luke and tell us where it differed. So we can also reconstruct their Luke which is about 50 years earlier than our earliest manuscript.
No one says Marcion wrote it. The argument (Klinghardt, Vinzent, BeDuhn) is that Marcion found an existing gospel, and canonical Luke is an expanded edition of it. On that view the shared «Lukan style» is expected, because they are the same book. A significant minority date Luke–Acts to c. 110–130 (Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, 1942; Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 2006; Pervo, Dating Acts, 2006). And «born around AD 85» is a guess. We don't know when Marcion was born.
Luke–Acts is exactly where the copies are least consistent. The Western text (Codex Bezae and the Old Latin) differs so much that Acts in Bezae is nearly a tenth longer, and Marcion's readings repeatedly agree with that Western text. The early papyri all come from Egypt, because that's where papyrus survives. Between Luke's composition and the first substantial copy there is roughly a century with no manuscripts. That is plenty of room.
Marcionite churches were still there three centuries later. In fact, they disappeared only because he told his followers to not reproduce (like the shakers). Oops. He was very popular. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in the 440s: «I led eight villages of Marcionists with their neighbourhood into the way of truth» (Ep. 81), «of whom… I have converted more than ten thousand» (Ep. 145). Manichaeism lasted into the 14th century in China, and the Mandaeans exist today. Gnosticism is still alive as well so you're just saying the more popular church wins. This is fallacious.
Then healings don't vindicate Catholicism, which was the claim. That leaves the «distinctive» cases, and each one is certified by the Church it vindicates:
On Fatima, a similar miracle occurred in Iran:
Finally, the Fatima phenomenon is weaksauce. Videos from the ACX article alleging something similar show basically nothing. It's literally not a miracle, if it's magic it's illusion magic, but a miracle is higher order. Again, why can't Yahweh do any miracles on camera? Why just weak illusion magic, if it's even true (and if it is true we don't know that its specific to Catholic canon, maybe whoever is doing it will like gnosticism more).
The Quran itself, a 7th-century text addressed to Muhammad's own audience, opens Sura 54 with «the Hour has drawn near and the moon has split». His opponents' reply is reported in the next verse: «continuous magic». It's a public cosmic miracle, in the earliest source, with the hostile witnesses' response.
Lastly, can I ask you why you are not a Muslim? The book says magic was ... around. It's more popular than your religion. Is there something flawed about it? Is it an empirical or logical flaw? What about its moral doctrines? Are you prideful enough to hold Allah to your Western moral standards? Why aren't you a Muslim? I'm asking because maybe this will shine some light on how I think about the OT.
This was not my claim either. I went into lots of paragraphs to be clear on this point, that it was the best account they had at the time as well as being interpreted as an allegory from the beginning, and these two ways of reading the text are not exclusive but are actually part of four modes of reading the Bible that have been encouraged by Christians since the beginning.
I have little hope that you understand me anywhere if you misunderstand this.
Giving a reason for a regulation does not mean it's not a regulation. He certainly didn't make it dogma.
This is not the same as condemning polygenism. Again you are jumping around. "The first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted" is perfectly compatible with an allegorical read of Genesis. The bare bones, what you're required to believe in order to be Catholic is that:
God made a man by giving him a rational soul. This is something extra God had to do of His own choice, it's not something that developed naturally from evolution.
God also made a woman through the first man, man and woman share the same nature despite our differences, and this relates the the way in which God ensouled us.
Originally man's life would have been in perfect happiness with no suffering. Then the first man and woman together sinned against God and messed it up.
All humans inherit the fallen human nature and the fallen world these two blockheads made through their sin. We share a common dignity between sexes and races, we share the same fate.
The interpolations from the extended Acts in Codex Bezae do not match the style of Luke and Acts. Pretty much everyone agrees that they are additions, not that Luke/Acts were redactions.
This is getting too long. Calanda is not like the hadiths, my argument was not that the hadiths were from long ago but rather contradicted testimony written down earlier regarding this event. I feel like you keep missing what I am saying and which point I'm making by what I'm saying. It's an experience not unlike talking to an LLM.
Did you look at the photos and the analysis from Fatima? https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/article/download/SetF.2021.001/28737 Photographs capture a light source from something that could not have been the sun. It also doesn't help that all these explanations for various phenomena contradict each other. The explanation against the colors is that they saw an effect that takes place is that this only happens when there is a specific, non visible cloud cover over the sun. But also the explanation for clothes drying (an effect also captured in photos) within minutes is that the sun was very hot/bright, the kind of hot that only happens when there is no cloud cover. Which is it?
Why am I not a Muslim? Because Catholicism is true. Once I accepted Catholicism as true, everything fit together, everything. All stories, all science, all longings of my heart and all the mental itching that told me I was missing something big, it all fell into place. The closer I grow to God through the practices of Catholicism the more certain I am. But I guess my path leading to it was the philosophical exploration of the uncaused cause, arguments for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, the history of the Church, the witness and example of the saints, the proof present in their lives that a transformative union with God is possible, and not just possible but something with a clear path to those willing to try.
It is true and there is very little anyone can do that will convince me otherwise. I know it is true like I know I breathe air. And because it's exclusive against the strongest Islamic claims, I know that Islam is unfortunately false, and not only false but frightening and sad.
This just looks like something any serious religion that tries to be self-consistent can do. Everything fits together for [sufficiently faithful]Muslims, for Jews, for atheists etc.
Can you not imagine that had you instead accepted Islam as true, you would be saying the same about Islam today? If you can't, why?
What if you hadn't eaten breakfast?If you can, what does that say about your current system of beliefs?Yes I can imagine an alternate world where Islam was true. If it was this world, where Islam is false but I accepted it anyway, I doubt I would experience the same signal graces, miracles, and spiritual experiences that I do now. You are assuming that I would because you are coming from the assumption that neither is true.
Edit: I also think that to be a Muslim you have to ignore a lot of things to get by, while as a Catholic I don't have to ignore anything. Largely how the Quran is actually considered literally the word of God and yet misunderstands Christianity severely, gets events wrong from the Old Testament while claiming that the OT is also simultaneously true. Whereas the Biblical interpretive key has room for individual authors writing in their biases.
I am assuming that you would because I am coming from the assumption that Muslims experience signal graces, miracles and spiritual experiences. And I am not asking you to imagine an alternate world where Islam is true, I am asking you to imagine a world where you accepted it as true.
Why do you assume this? I think, if I accepted Islam as true in a world where it is not true, I would not have made as much spiritual progress.
I understand that Islam is a totalizing ideology, which seems to be what you are getting at. But the example of the Catholic and Orthodox saints blow the Awliya completely out of the water in terms of life-changing conversions, selfless love, signs and wonders. In fact, while Islam has a concept of miracles, Karamah, their theology says that people should hide their miracles and not flaunt them. This means that unlike Catholic miracles, most Islamic miracles have very little investigation, even from Islam-friendly sources.
Let's put the question to you. If you were in a world where Catholicism was true, would you expect that Catholics would experience more miracles, inner conversions, spiritual progress than Muslims? If you were in a world where Islam was true, would you expect that Muslims would experience more miracles, inner conversions, spiritual progress than Catholics?
Because I have no reason to believe your inner experiences of faith - you as in the collective Catholic, not you specifically - are significantly more rich than those of the collective Muslim when the outward expression is the same. I have my differences with Islam and believe sincere Islam to be incompatible with the model of society I prefer more so than sincere Christianity, but I wouldn't go so far as to assume they have nothing in their heads.
That seems to support my point - that Catholic experiences of miracles appear to be more popular because they are investigated more, not because Muslims experience significantly fewer miracles. (To be frank, even if they did experience fewer miracles, the appropriate amount of miracles supporting a false religion would be zero, would it not?)
See my reply above - in a supposed thought experiment where Catholicism is objectively true, Muslim miracles do not objectively exist.
Would Catholics think they experience miracles more than Muslims, on levels not explainable by IQ, intensity of religious education, reporting effects - I don't think so.
Of course I would expect the world to look radically different than it looks now if Catholicism was true. I won't bother you with the details, others have listed them, in short I would expect it to look more like something out of Unsong - so obviously Christian that Islam, let alone atheism, would be engaged in only by deliberate contrarians or the mentally ill unable to participate in society.
Vice versa for a world where Islam was true.
And yet, I live in the current world, where you and a Muslim both would tell me I live in one of theirs, using very similar arguments!
There's a difference between paranormal circumstances, miracles, and vindictatory miracles. I'd expect 0 miracles that vindicate distinctively Muslim claims, meaning theological claims that Muslims make that Catholics do not also make. But "God loves us and has a plan for my life so He healed me" is a claim that holds as true in both Christianity and Islam. I'm even open to the possibility that humans have senses that we have yet to study in depth. Parapsychologists study and claim that many humans have an innate talent for water dowsing, remote viewing, telepathy, etc, which might be confused for a miracle in another religion but might actually follow some natural laws that we have yet to unpack.
Catholicism has the best attested vindicatory miracles and there are no real attempts in other religions to claim otherwise. Atheists like to believe that it must all be the same, but I haven't' seen one actually put in the effort to prove that other religions make anything like the claims of Catholicism.
Fair enough. I would like to ask you to put forward what you think would be the most convincing example of a Catholic vindicatory miracle. Up to three examples, even.
I'm aware that Catholics have a trove of many more claims than that, but frankly so do the flat-earthers.
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