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 -
[edited this comment significantly to clarify + to remove unnecessary boo outgroup]
Re: “Judaism isn’t a proselytizing religion”, it should be noted that Judaism is an ethno-religion. An ethno-religion that doesn’t convert also runs into some moral quandaries. There’s a big movement in the Jewish World based around Chabad, and according to the foundational text of Chabad, the Tanya, gentiles have a naturally more evil soul and Jews have a soul with a “divine spark”. This is a mainstream lesson at Chabad-friendly synagogues. The religion of Judaism in its more conservative variants is extremist in this sense. “Praying three times a day that apostates have no hope” is also normative, which can be contrasted to the Christian prayer of praying for conversion and enlightenment.
This is nutpicking. I am not a Jewish theologian and I am pretty confident you aren't either, but selectively pulling excerpts from Jewish texts to "prove" that Jews all secretly believe that gentiles are animals and also believe in lying and stoning people is the same sort of thing you can do with any holy texts. We know this because people play the same game with Christians and Muslims. Shall we play a game of "What Christians actually believe according to the Bible"? We'd get plenty of Christians stepping up to explain how that's being taken out of context, and whether or not it is, it is certainly not what mainstream Christians believe.
Statements like this:
Are inflammatory enough to require a lot more evidence than just "Some Jewish texts can be interpreted in crazy ways." If you want to paint Jews as a secret conspiracy to enslave all the goyim.... well, don't. Try actually engaging honestly with Jews say they believe in their own words. (And if you're going to stick with "But they're lying because their religion tells them to lie to us," well, you haven't presented nearly enough evidence of such a conspiracy.)
More options
Context Copy link
No, Judaism is not a proselytizing religion because Judaism holds that all righteous persons, regardless of religion, are rewarded after death. In contrast, Christianity teaches that only Christians are rewarded, so of course it is a proselytizing religion; if you believe that, you have a moral duty to convert others. Adherents of Judaism or religions with similar beliefs have no such moral duty.
Does your «Judaism» teach that all branches and forms of Judaism, from endogamous neo-archaic dynasties like Satmar to mainline Orthodoxy to the most progressive Reform synagogue ordaining intersex mixed-race converts as Rebes, are more similar in their teaching than all denominations of Christianity? Is there perhaps some Jewish equivalent of the Holy See, with a legible publicly available teaching which all Jews are doctrine-bound to comply with?
In my understanding, the opposite is the case, and you are suffering from the outgroup homogenity bias here, while disingenuously asserting homogeneity in your own camp. But also, your interpretation is objectively… non-traditional.
And the issue of promised postmortem reward is debatable even for Jews, nevermind Gentiles.
You seem to be assuming that the person you are replying to is Jewish, which their comment doesn't say.
To be fair: yes, contra @Ioper I happen to assume @Gdanning is probably ethnically Jewish (of secular or semi-secular persuasion), although I might be totally wrong and have never cared much or looked into this; he has interesting things to say about law and that's where my engagement for the most part ends.
This, however, is based on a multi-year history of reading him and has almost nothing to do with my response to that particular comment. My phrase
your «Judaism»is supposed to mean «your notion of Judaism, as you define it here» or perhaps «Judaism in the sense as it's described by you in this chain and others in similar contexts you seem to refer to», and does not depend on any particular belief about Gdanning's own allegiance and object-level religious attitude.More options
Context Copy link
No, he assumes that Jews are his ingroup. Progressives treat trans-people as their ingroup, that doesn't mean they're trans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
[edited this comment to remove unnecessary boo outgroup]
Judaism is (paradoxically) proselytizing for born-Jews who don’t practice, often trying to bring them into practicing the ethnoreligion again. Israel spends funds on this, as do numerous Jewish groups, not to mention Birth Right and Right of Return. Some Conservative Chabad Jews in Israel are so perturbed by Christians that just this year two Knesset members drafted a law to make Christian proselytizing illegal. Israel of course also forbids Kohen-ethnicity Jews from marrying Christians — does this sound like a belief system that primarily values righteousness and believe the righteous are equally rewarded? I would say no. They believe Israel (the people) have a special place, given a special spiritually-infused soul which God favors via communication and spiritual privileges. Judaism also has a mild caste system within the religion: Kohen and Levite descended bloodlines have special treatments and obligations in Temples, and laws are written in Israel to protect these bloodlines.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While it is true that Judaism believes that jews and non-jews have souls of different types, the characterization of that belief as "only a Jew can be a full-formed person" is inaccurate. The "animal soul" that you speak of is common to both jews and non-jews, and is more properly rendered as "the animating spirit." In addition, the word which you translate as "apostates," is more properly translated as "informers."
The kelipah is the source of both the Jewish and gentile soul “animal” soul, but the “kelipah nogah“ is unique to Jews, while all gentile souls come from lesser kelipot. This is found in chapter 1 of the Tanya which you can find on chabad.org.
Googling while wondering if you misspelled Talmud ... this is a religious philosophy book published in 1796, whose general philosophy is subscribed to by nearly 0.7% of Jewish people? The Book of Mormon is nearly as old, and represents approximately the same fraction of followers of Jesus. That doesn't prove you wrong (hey, there are tons of Book of Mormon verses that most non-Mormon Christians would agree with, too, even if they think the reason was just "Joseph Smith wrote Bible fan-fiction"), but supporting a broad claim would require citing a broader source.
If you're not making a broad claim, that's fine too, but "extremists of X can't coexist with non-X" is a depressingly broad claim in another way: you can't say it's anything special about Judaism. Muslims who think apostasy should be a capital crime are currently supermajorities in whole countries. Modern Christians are mostly better, but that seems to be a result of exhausting the alternatives first (the European Wars of Religion killed millions; some German states would have seen less population loss if they'd had another Black Plague instead) and remembering their problems (they now know that the next step beyond "we all have to be Christian" is "yeah, friend? which kind?"...). There are some religions that specifically disclaim violent and extremist ... wait, no, not Buddhists too? If you step away from religion completely, it's true that atheists have needed to find some other
holysacredall-important cause to kill millions of people for, and this seems like an improvement because then the cause at least isn't directly tied to the atheism, but it does make me fear that there's some nearly-inextricable tie to human psychology.I take issue with your 0.7 percent figure. While it may be accurate in the context of all jews, it is unhelpful here, where the topic is orthodox or ultra-orthodox Jewry, of whom Chabad is a far larger percentage. Tanya is not only the foundational text of Chabad, but is also studied by many non-Chabad Jews interested in Hasidic thought. In that sense it is worth far more than 'fanfiction', it is one of the main theological works of Hasidism, even if it is not the foundational text of any sect other than Chabad. I do, however agree that it is insufficient as a source from which to make broader generalizations about jews. My earlier reply to Coffee Enjoyer was based on the Nefesh Hachaim, which is a work written against Tanya. I should not have made that point in the form of "Judaism believes."
More options
Context Copy link
Chabad is a wildly influential center of Jewish culture in America. There are Chabad houses on many major college campuses and they influence Jewish culture at large. There are 2900 Chabad “houses” of influence in America. Their official membership is not the extent of their influence. This is something I ought to have clarified in my comment, which is my mistake. Just quoting from the Wikipedia, which you are free to disagree with but hopefully for a reason,
Yes, that Alan Dershowitz. We’re not talking about a few devout Amish-like Jews. Chabad has huge, growing influence on the Jewish world.
Further reading
https://yasha.substack.com/p/the-weird-world-of-chabad-an-influential-a54
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/pew-us-jewry-is-shifting-profoundly-chabad-is-on-rise-669549
Does Chabad influence Jewish beliefs about Gentile souls? That purported inherent Jewish contempt for Gentile souls was the bailey, right? I thought "You can find such awful beliefs in one subsect's founder's centuries-old book" was a small motte to retreat to, but "The sect gives Jewish college kids community centers and only 84% of Jews aren't 'semi-regular' service attendees" is a motte so tightly walled in I can't even find a window from which to see out. Wait until you hear about the Salvation Army.
Even the "network of camps" stuff needs fleshing out. I went to (Christian) religious summer camp at one point as a kid. We never got an "unbaptized babies end up in hell" lesson there, though, despite it being fairly fundamental to the denomination's roots. Do Chabad camp attendees get the adults' "Gentile souls are crummy" lessons, or is "eh, gloss over the creepy stuff in front of the kids" a common trait?
We did get the "Abraham was great for being willing to kill his son when the voices only he could hear told him to" lesson occasionally in (again, Christian) church. Likewise for Noah's Ark and non-Noahs' Watery Graves, though that was treated as more parable than literal. I also reached the "Moses getting chided by God for not quite being genocidal enough" parts when reading the Bible by myself. There is indeed lots of really awful stuff in actual Jewish scripture! The catch is that it got eagerly adopted by billions of Christians, too, because "form moral judgments independently" and "treat all human life as equally sacred, yes even some of those outsiders" haven't been very popular among any groups. That Chabad book actually predates the last time some Christian authorities hanged a man for heresy! ("according to Ripoll, it was not necessary to hear Mass in order to save one's soul from damnation"? String him up, for that?) The claim that Judaism has "moral quandaries" is impossible to argue against, but suggesting that it's somehow special in this respect can't be done without ignoring all other human ideology, and then picking out one subsect to speak for a whole is like a willful rejection of all the tragicomedy of religious belief, Jewish belief in particular.
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
Please note that the Talmud is a record of historical debates, and therefore includes records of many positions which are advanced, considered, and then rejected. In ths case, Sanhedrin 59 is the section concerning Torah study and Gentiles, and the view that Gentiles should not study Torah is contested and rebutted - it goes on to say that "even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest".
On a purely anecdotal level this has tracked with my experience with Jewish communities and synagogues - I mention the above passage in particular because I once discussed some of these questions (specifically the relation of Gentiles to Torah) with a few rabbis, brought up this dispute in the Talmud, and the response I got was a smiling rabbi saying, "Like you." I ended up attending a Torah study for a while and being part of a beit midrash.
Obviously synagogues vary widely in their level of welcome, but I bring this up just to have a contrary example present as well. There is tremendous internal debate within Judaism - even the link you provided above points to a record of debates about the status of Gentiles, and cites the very Gemara passage I mentioned above.
I think there's a tendency you get in many external critiques of religion that simply read a given sacred text, draw a lot of surface-level assumptions from it, and therefore conclude that either the religion is painfully anti-human and cruel, or that almost all practitioners of the religion are hypocrites. I'd suggest that it's often better to pay more attention to what is actually practiced - not that sacred texts don't matter, but those texts are held as part of interpretive communities. The history of the text's reception and interpretation, and then the way it is applied communally, are inseparable from its meaning.
More options
Context Copy link
What's the difference with the other monotheistic religions? Thinking others are destined to hell is worse than believing them to be less than a fully formed person. In any case it doesn't matter what people believe, only their actions matter.
Well the big difference between main-line Christianity and the others is that main-line Christianity holds that all people are "fully formed" and capable of being saved, even the ones you don't like. And yes this was a significant point of friction in the early Church which is why Paul and Peter spend a good chunk of the New Testament hammering the point that Jesus did not come to save just the rich or just the Jews he came to save everyone because is it not written that G-d favors and confides in all who fear him.
As for believing that believing someone to be sub-human being normatively worse than believing that they are risking eternal damnation, That's just like your opinion man. I suppose it makes sense from a utilitarian perspective, but the historical track record of such thinking is also a major part of why I believe utilitarianism to be fundamentally evil and incompatible with human flourishing.
You can take your potential universal saveability and shove it. If it is a crime to think me lesser and wrong, it’s not up to you to judge your beliefs, but to me. Else you should bow down before my assessment of utilitarianism. Its universal saveability is far less conditional. Bentham loves you, man.
Bentham never loved anyone but Bentham and that is a major component of the problem, the rest is aptly summed up by @FCfromSSC
More options
Context Copy link
Thinking someone is lesser is a problem because you are excluding them from baseline considerations about justice and what is right. This is wrong for both metaphysical reasons and practical ones.
Thinking someone is wrong is a necessary consequence of believing in right and wrong. If wrong exists, some people will be wrong. Claiming that thinking others are wrong is a "crime" is a demand for totalitarian enforcement of one's own values.
If Bentham loves me, he has a funny way of showing it. His ideas lead to torture chambers and mass graves.
Yes, obviously. I'm defending freedom of conscience. My position is that thinking of "thinking of others as lesser" as a crime also requires totalitarian enforcement. Firstly, because it requires divining what others are thinking. Secondly, because being wrong is strictly inferior, so those who are wrong are necessarily lesser.
I reject the christian and muslim view of unbelievers as 'lost sheep', potential equals, as a mealy mouthed, patronizing framing. In reality, they damn and demonize them. Mainstreal islam especially, excludes nonbelievers from its idea of justice and morality, and as you say, that is a problem (though for me, only when they act on those beliefs).
Given your stated beliefs, can you honestly argue that " freedom of conscience" is a good thing? If so, How?
Self-evident, really. Promotes liberty and human flourishing, doesn’t result in totalitarianism. Removes the likelihood of conflict by one degree, since beliefs alone are never grounds for conflict, but only overt acts.
You think your beliefs are ‘good’. I disagree, think they’re bad, insulting and unfair to unbelievers. But it doesn’t matter, because I can live in peace with people with bad beliefs, like you or the chabad jews.
Also prevents 30 Years' Wars. You know how they say "every safety rule has a corpse behind it" and suchlike? Freedom of religion is the peace treaty to end a war that depopulated most of Central Europe.
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
I wonder if it depends on what kind of Christianity you grew up around? When I was growing up it was common to hear someone reply to a description of a sinner with "Well they're going to hell." But that was it, that phrase not only ended the conversation, it was a signal that you should stop being concerned about the sinner and move on with your life. Yeah they are doing the wrong thing, and God will take care of them for it, so focus on your own problems. And that's before you bring other religions into it - oh you think I'm going to suffer in a place I don't believe in after I die? Cool bananas!
Meanwhile, considering someone subhuman - that's an open book. Who knows what a person might do to a subhuman - although it isn't a stretch to think they might treat them subhumanely.
I think it might. I grew up amongst this weird mix of Congregationalist Evangelicals, old school Black Baptists, and hard-core latin mass Catholics and Episcopalians who had kind of formed an alliance. Despite their theological differences and semi-regular flare ups these disparate groups tended to regard each other as natural allies. One of those "nobody gets to rag on my little brother but me" type vibes. We would play softball together. Whatever else there was seemed to be a shared consensus that the path was hard and that even trying to follow it marked someone as "not a complete asshole" and worthy of encouragement.
I wonder if people who grew up in more mono-demoninational areas of the country might have missed out on that part.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The certainty all non-believers go to hell is not mainstream Christian belief. It was debated in the first century, and Catholics (eg) believe righteous non-believers may go to Heaven (yet the Church is the only certain, ordained, and expedient way of salvation). But it’s also different for another reason. A hypothetically hegemonic Catholicism allows anyone to be 100% Christian and 100% loved by God. A hypothetically hegemonic conservative Judaism excludes much of the world from ever being 100% loved by God, or Jewish in the eyes of religious authorities. So you’re cutting people off, excluding them purely based on DNA. That’s a huge zero day bug in the religion’s code that demands criticism and condemnation. How, in 2023, do we have a religion where the most important criterion is not what you do, or even what you believe, but your DNA? How can you really have a religion that says a child immediately adopted by a Jewish woman will never be loved by God?
Yes it is. It may not be fashionable in the biggest denominations today, but it is both the historic teaching of the Catholic Church and the current belief of many influential denominations.
This statement meets all of the criteria outlined in The First Vatican Council for an ex-cathedra infallible teaching. The idea that, "righteous non-believers may go to Heaven (yet the Church is the only certain, ordained, and expedient way of salvation)," is modernist bullshit. Any orthodox Catholic prior to 1800 would have immediately recognized that proposition as heretical.
Someone who dies and is buried in a graveyard goes to the grave. But christians also say that he goes to heaven or hell. As far as I understand it, its impossible to go to two different places at the same time, so what gives? If that phrase is not to be taken literally, then they should start using a more sincere phrase to describe that notion, maybe like 'a copy of him is created in heaven/hell', or 'recreated in heaven/hell'.
More options
Context Copy link
Really?
Baptism of desire isn't something new or even controversial I assumed?
More options
Context Copy link
And yet, Protestants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll add that, in my experience, I've heard this as a common Islamic criticism of Judaism as well. Islam is very clear that everybody is made good and beloved by God and is of equal intrinsic worth. God sent prophets to every nation, and everyone regardless of ethnicity or race or culture can become a Muslim and be saved. That door is always open, and sometimes I talk to Muslims about how they could never sympathise with Judaism because it excludes so much of humanity. Jews are no better and no worse than anyone else.
It makes for an interesting contrast with Christianity. In Islam, the history of Israel is in a sense unimportant. God sent prophets to all peoples to teach them his ways, and eventually summed up and collected them all in the Final Prophet. Israel is a historically relevant case of this happening, because it influenced so much of the rest of the Middle East, and provided cultural context for the final revelation, but it isn't theologically relevant, in any deep sense. We know the prophets of Israel well because they're described in detail in the Tanakh, but the prophets of Israel are not intrinsically any better than any other prophets.
For Christians, on the other hand, the history of Israel specifically does matter - Jesus is the messiah and king of Israel, the summation of that nation's history, but in a way that somehow 'breaks out' and expands to the entire world. The New Testament is full of quite painful wrestling with what this means, and how you get from Israel to the New Creation in which all are one in Christ. So Christianity still has to reckon with Israel in a way that Islam doesn't.
most of the stories in islam are plagiarized from judaism and most of the prophets mentioned in them are jewish prophets. for example, islam claims that the kibla shrine in mecca (holiest place in islam) was built by abraham, the father of the jewish people, even thought this is false and mohamed said this just to legitimize the place that was previously a pagan shrine.
Certainly Islam is very strongly influenced by Judaism and Christianity. The Qur'an is full of stories and references from the Hebrew scriptures.
What I want to argue is that as a theological category, Israel doesn't cause the sort of problems for Islam that it does for Christianity. Israel is relevant for Muhammad and early Islamic Arabia in a contingent, historical sense, but only in a contingent sense. God's covenant with Israel matters because it happens to have been a very influential one in the region, but that's all. The Final Revelation to Muhammad isn't dependent on the covenant with Israel.
That is, Israel is not special in Islam. It had a covenant with God and prophets sent from God, but so did every nation - see Qur'an 16:36 and 40:78.
This is not really the case in Judaism or in Christianity. In both of those traditions, you sometimes get the idea that God might have spoken or sent prophets to other nations to warn them, but this is relatively radical. Rather, both seem to take the view that God revealed himself only to Israel. That's why in Romans 1:18-21 Paul need to present an argument as to why the Gentiles are at fault for failing to recognise God. Likewise in the sermon in Acts 17, he invokes 'the times of human ignorance', suggesting that there was some period in which God was not known to the Gentiles, which might be a mitigating factor for their ignorance.
So Israel retains a central significance for them. For better or for worse, it was the place where God first made himself known to mankind, and everything proceeds from there.
That said, both Judaism and Christianity have the idea that in some sense Israel is supposed to illustrate or reveal God to the nations. As I understand it ancient Judaism was somewhat more 'evangelical' than modern Judaism, and allowed for actively going out and attempting to convince Gentiles to worship the God of Abraham, but even in modern Judaism, there is the idea that because of Israel's faithfulness all the nations will come to recognise and worship God. They will not become Jews, but they will know God.
Exactly how this will happen has been disputed. There are passages that you can read as implying a sort of empire, e.g. Deuteronomy 15:6, but that is not a common understanding now, and I believe now it's usually thought to be a sort of global moral influence, as in e.g. Exodus 19:6, with Israel as a 'kingdom of priests'. At any rate, there's the idea of Israel as a light on a hill - God using Israel as a vehicle for the salvation of the world.
What that would look like is, again, unclear, and sometimes it might be something left for the messiah, so all Jews need to do now is follow the mitzvot and live righteous lives, as good examples to the world. Sometimes I believe very liberal Jewish teachers have suggested that Jesus or Muhammad might have been means by which God made himself known beyond the Jewish people. That doesn't mean endorsing everything in Christianity or Islam, but prophets to the Gentiles, so to speak. That said that is a very liberal move. At any rate, I think the exact way it will work continues to be a matter of reasonable debate among Jews.
Christianity, at any rate, does think it knows how God used Israel for the salvation of the world. For Christians, Israel becomes a sort of prelude to Christ - it was, like John the Baptist, there to make straight the way. This does not indicate any special righteousness on behalf of the Jewish people, for all have sinned equally and fallen short of God's glory, but merely that this was the history that led up to Christ. Israel's relevance is subsumed within Christ's relevance. The old covenant with Israel is not negated - on the contrary, it is fulfilled - but it becomes part of the new covenant in Christ's body, which is for all people.
There's still massive debate within Christianity as to exactly how this works, and I won't rehearse arguments over supersessionism or dual covenant theology or anything else, but I think pretty much all Christians would hold that Jesus in some way fulfils the covenant with Israel or is the culmination of Israel's history, and inaugurates a new creation in which all people are saved.
So to broadly summarise:
Judaism: Israel is the community of the covenant, a people that God has chosen and reserved to himself out of all the world. We are those people and we must follow his commandments.
Christianity: Israel was a theologically important nation, the product of a covenant which led up to and was completed in Jesus, God's only Son. In Jesus all divisions between peoples and nations have been abolished. We are born to new life in Jesus and must carry this gospel to the nations.
Islam: Israel was a historically important nation, and one whose prophets are known particularly well to us and are especially dear to us. However, all nations received prophets, for God neglected none of his people. All revelations to all nations have been collected up and completed in the revelation to the final prophet, however, and it is this revelation that all people must now follow. We are the people of this final revelation and must issue this call to all people.
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