site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   25732 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023

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.

5
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't disagree on your point that modern "holidays" are largely promoted or manufactured, but many traditional societies have midwinter celebrations around that time: the Roman Saturnalia, or the Germanic Yule are historically relevant and also both heavily influenced the way in which Christmas is celebrated. The Bible has perilously little to say about decorated evergreen trees or reindeer.

Even among Christian nations, there is some difference in celebrations: Saint Nicholas Day is largely ignored in the US, but is popular elsewhere, and the entire Orthodox branch of Christianity celebrates most holidays at different times.

and the entire Orthodox branch of Christianity celebrates most holidays at different times.

That isn't actually technically true. Orthodox churches in majority Orthodox countries use the Julian calendar for religious purposes, which delays most holidays, but the calendar date is technically the same, and in the west most Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar only for Easter.

The Bible has perilously little to say about decorated evergreen trees

I'd say Christmas trees are banned according to Jeremiah 10:3-4. Don't be doing that pagan tree decorating thing.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Colossians 2:16-17 - you are pharisaic - you are not saved.

Wow, I forgot how utterly terrible many translations of that passage are. Huge oof when you look at the Greek, then back to this translation, then back to the Greek. Just amazingly atrocious attempts to squeeze in the translators' preferred beliefs.

Where do you think it's gone wrong? The original is:

Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

My rough translation would be something like, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you concerning food or drink, or in respect of a feast or a New Moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things coming; the body, however, is Christ."

The NIV... mostly sticks to this? It does mess around a bit with plurals (it's definitely feast singular, New Moon singular, Sabbaths plural, but the NIV has made them all singular), and translating σῶμα as 'reality' is certainly an odd move, but the substance of the verse is intact?

That said I think its applicability as a proof-text here is a bit weak. Jeremiah 10 is clearly talking about idols in the classical sense - the point is not that decorated trees are somehow evil, no more than the Golden Calf proves that goldsmithing is inherently evil, but rather that you should not create idols to worship. It's the same argument as Isaiah 44:9-20. "Shall I fall down before a block of wood?" Do not worship your own creation! But a Christmas tree is not an object of worship by any means, so it's not the target of the critique.

Colossians 2, however, is an argument against rigorism - the mention of Sabbaths means that the Judaizers are probably in Paul's sights there, but it's possible he's also thinking of the same controversy as in 1 Corinthians 8, regarding food sacrificed to idols. Paul's perspective, I think, is that excessively policing the likes of food or festival observance is itself a sign of lack of faith - a dependence on what is seen, rather than faith in what is unseen. It's striking that Paul advances this argument from both directions, in different places - neither the Jews (with the law and the sabbaths) nor the Greeks (with feasts and sacrifices) are permitted to place stumbling blocks before the saints.

At any rate, declaring that people are unsaved Pharisees is pretty evidently contrary to the spirit of Christianity. When you think a person is making a mistake, the correct approach is to explain the truth in a spirit of gentleness and charity (cf. Acts 18:24-28, 1 Peter 3:15-16). Better to be not swift in leaping to condemnation.

translating σῶμα as 'reality' is certainly an odd move

This is the glaring odd move. You translate σῶμα as 'body', which is in agreement with more literal translations as well as how the NIV translates it throughout Colossians (and elsewhere). It's especially glaringly messed up when you look at other uses of σῶμα from the author of Colossians. [Emphasis added for the location of σῶμα.]

1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

1:22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—

1:24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

2:19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

2:23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.

It's clear that σῶμα is used in two senses in this letter, either referring to a physical body of an individual or referring to a 'body of Christians'. So when you say:

Colossians 2, however, is an argument against rigorism

That seems somewhat reasonable. So, if we were to look at something like a more literal KJV translation (pulling out the the 'is', which, uh, isn't there), we see something like:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days (which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ.

It's pretty easy to read this as saying, "Just don't pay attention to what non-Christians are saying. Just stick with what the Christians are doing." This still allows the group of Christians to accept/reject different days/foods/etc., but that they need to look internally within the group rather than what the Jews/Greeks are saying. It takes a lot of stretching to pull on what is basically one inelegantly constructed sentence here to get to the pretty sweeping conclusions that I think @Hawaii98 wants to make.

The 'hey honey, come look, I've discovered something all the world's top experts missed' meme except unironically and it's you

Nah. There are some good translations. The world's top experts do those. Just some of the world's top experts really strain to put their interpretation in there. To be flippant like you, it's the 'hey honey, come look, I found a few experts who say that caloric intake has nothing to do with weight loss' meme except unironically it's you.

This is actually interesting. What would you propose is a reasonable translation?

See the discussion here.

Influenced via Victorians with history books who wanted to turn Christmas from a St. Patrick's esque drinking holiday to something more family friendly rather than via converting pagans.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats