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 -
What is Judiaism without God if not Identity Politics? Are you going try to deny that Marx's religion had anything to do with his politics?
Christianity. They play trinity-card-monte with god and replace him with the afterlife.
I dont think you know what you're talking about
I think my facile conjectures make more sense than yours. Get rid of the old testament god, and what's left? A shitty version of the enlightenment.
The idea that there is a meaningful difference between the old testemant God and the new is a lie that was sold to you by your aithiest college professor. It aint guys like me who are trying to get rid of the old testamant God, its you.
Just because they’ve had two thousand years to hone a lie, doesn’t mean it isn’t one. He’s a capricious blood god in the mold of allah or odin. You know why people believe the ‘antitheist professors’? Because what they say is convincing. They don’t rely on the gullibility of the recently born and the soon-to-be deceased. And for the record, I did not have to wait for college to notice the discrepancy between the old god and the new. Besides, those most involved in selling the image of a nice new testament god aren’t guys like me but modern christians, who by embuing him entirely with enlightenment values, sanewash christianity. I guess even the common man knows which way the bread is buttered, and it sure as hell wasn’t the old god that buttered his.
Can you give an example from the OT of God being capricious?
Freud was one of the most convincing antitheist professors that has ever lived. Do you believe that this was because his arguments were correct?
No, they rely on the gullibility of people who yearn to be told that they can do what they want without consequence.
It would be interesting if you could demonstrate that discrepancy, then, because I don't think it actually exists.
People who ignore bits of the Bible they find inconvenient aren't actually Christians. There are plenty of us left who do not.
The flood, sodom and gomorrah, the binding of isaac, being a dick to job, the killing of egyptian first-borns (was that some genocidal form of proto-identity politics, I wonder) are the most well-known and really define his personality, but the bible is full of examples:
(ie, burnt his own daughter as a randomized trade/thank you note for crushing the ammonites. The morale of the story presumably being, you never know what’s gonna come through that door)
Again with Freud. Look, it’s not a binary. All else equal, an adult being convinced by arguments is more evidence of them being correct than a child believing something (eg, santa claus).
People throughout the world grow extremely wicked, God destroys them as punishment while protecting a righteous man and his family. Not capricious.
People in two cities grow extremely wicked, God destroys them as punishment while protecting a righteous man and his family. Not capricious.
God demonstrates that his chosen patriarch is willing to sacrifice his son, and also that such sacrifices are not desired by God; that is to say, the absence of child sacrifice is not due to a lack of fervor or obedience on the part of God's people, but rather because God himself considers child-sacrifice abhorrent. Not capricious.
The point of Job is that God is under no obligation to justify his actions to his creation. It is not claimed that God acts arbitrarily, only that we are not owed an explanation for specific things that happen. This is as close to capricious as your list gets, but throughout God insists that he has reasons for what he does. Not capricious, any more than any other need-to-know system is.
The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews, and attempted genocide against them by ordering the execution of all their male children. Their own first-borns are killed by God as punishment, after they are given repeated opportunities to relent from their actions. Not capricious.
Moses, while acting as God's prophet, has violated the covenant by not circumcising his sons in direct violation of God's command. Not capricious.
The youths treat God's representative with scorn, dishonoring God, and an example is made of them. Not capricious.
The capricious actions are all Jepthah's, not God's. Jepthah is a cautionary story about swearing foolish oaths, and Jephthah himself is no more an example of a righteous man than Samson is.
None of these citations involve a single capricious action on God's part.
Stop claiming that expert-based consensus settles arguments, and I'll stop citing the gold-standard of evidence that expert-based consensus absolutely does not settle arguments.
And if Christians were only made by convincing children, this would be relevant. But they are not, and those convinced as children grow up and have ample opportunity to change their minds. Likewise, adults being convinced of something is not good evidence that the thing they're convinced of is true. There is no such thing as proof by social consensus, so stop citing social consensus as evidence.
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