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 imagine you're right. Aren't there teachings about the necessity of grace, though, given that the Pelagian controversy was a thing? And wouldn't pretty much everyone have committed a mortal sin at some point (and so they wouldn't be considered to have lived a righteous life, as you put it), as well as there being original sin?
Not disagreeing that is probably the official line, just unsure how some of that works.
The mechanism of theoretical salvation for the righteous non-Christian is still the grace obtained through the sacrifice of Christ, as it is for the innocent unborn, and for youths before their personal age of accountability.
They would have to be someone who, were they not ignorant of or memetically poisoned against the gospel, would repent of and turn from wickedness, and plead Christ’s blood before God’s throne.
So then why do Christians spread the gospel? First, because He told us to. Second, to assure salvation and hope to any who feel lost in this world’s turmoil.
That's a reasonable take, but I don't think it's quite the same as what @Hyperion was saying. You seem to be saying those who would have believed would be saved, while he was saying that those who did the best available to them would be saved, which are not the same.
(I'm not sure that the link you put is arguing what you are saying, since it seems to say that everyone still is guilty at the end—just saying there are differences of degree, if I'm reading it rightly.)
I disagree with both, though.
The scriptural evidence is somewhat interesting. The main thing that comes to mind is some imprecations of Jesus:
It's definitely not saying here that Sodom and Tyre and Sidon will be in paradise. But it seems like they will have a less severe judgment.
I think one thing to be kept in mind is that our salvation is fundamentally not based upon our deservingness, but Christ's. It's not that people are good enough but just in the wrong situtation, never hearing the gospel, etc. No, rather, conversion is rather a work of God in those who are wicked and undeserving.
Yeah, I gave a hot take on the most permissible salvation scenario I can reasonably consider possible. It’s not likely to shake out that way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn’t really work, but people, and religions, contain multitudes. You see this in all religions where they compromise their previous beliefs for various reasons and that becomes the new orthodoxy only to then compromise them again during the next crisis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link