In the course of history our perception of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' can change and we cannot always blame our forefathers (and mothers and non-fathers and non-mothers) for not having the same outlook on life as we do now.
I guess the question is where you draw that line between "past generations" and ourselves. For example, the high school students who assaulted the sit-in protesters at the Jackson, MS Woolworth's would be in their mid- to late-seventies today. Because they "lived in a different time" do they still get a pass for using violence to uphold racial segregation if they try it today?
Sorry @Crœsos but that last sentence concatenates two things that are not one and aren't even closely related. It's your phrase,
"if they tried it today"
that gives the game away.
That's not an episode I've heard of before, but from the link, it sounds appalling. Any right thinking person will say that those who were in that jeering mob were wrong to do what they did. From the way it's reported, it's clear that there were many who thought that way then, though how many of those lived in Jackson Mississippi I can't say. Those that were in that mob who are still alive should feel ashamed. I don't know which of them do and which don't. I suspect that there are those who do feel ashamed but would prefer not to talk about it, and probably hope others don't know they were there. However, I'm in a far away country and don't know any of them. You're not in a far away country, but I suspect you don't really know either.
However, I'd be surprised if there is anyone in their mid to late seventies who doesn't feel guilt and shame about something that they did, thought, didn't think about or took for granted when they were a teenager sixty years ago.
Trying it today, still thinking that way today, not feeling any guilt or shame today about behaving like that then or now, imagining one is entitled to behave like that, or ought to be entitled to behave like that if abolitionists, them liberals or the woke hadn't been allowed to get in the way, that's a quite different thing.
That may be partly because the past contains our own ancestors, and partly because there is no possibility of changing it.
Maybe, but my other grandfather was racist AF, and likely (as an estate agent) a contributor to de facto segregation in Bristol. I've no desire to excuse his behaviour.
This is not really about Christian ethics, is it? I mean the fact that witches were killed using a clergyman's evidence is neither nor there. I guess it's distressing, but it doesn't tell us anything germane.
This is not really about Christian ethics, is it? I mean the fact that witches were killed using a clergyman's evidence is neither nor there. I guess it's distressing, but it doesn't tell us anything germane.
In the OP NEQ said "I would probably neither recognise nor understand many of the beliefs and practices of my predecessor Christians here".
Christians need to have a well thought-out position to answer legitimate questions about why, for example, people were tortured or killed for alleged heresy. And even why, until very recently, many Christians used passages in Proverbs to justify physical chastisement of children.
We can't just say they knew no better -because they had the Gospels too. As I opined upthread, I think Christian ethical thinking went wrong and has been slowly recovering.
This is not really about Christian ethics, is it? I mean the fact that witches were killed using a clergyman's evidence is neither nor there. I guess it's distressing, but it doesn't tell us anything germane.
In the OP NEQ said "I would probably neither recognise nor understand many of the beliefs and practices of my predecessor Christians here".
Christians need to have a well thought-out position to answer legitimate questions about why, for example, people were tortured or killed for alleged heresy. And even why, until very recently, many Christians used passages in Proverbs to justify physical chastisement of children.
We can't just say they knew no better -because they had the Gospels too. As I opined upthread, I think Christian ethical thinking went wrong and has been slowly recovering.
I thought that change like this was inevitable and pervasive in any school of belief. For example, I remember reading in 18th century diarists and other writing about divine providence. Thus, if your child died, there was a good reason. This idea began to dwindle, didn't it? I'm not saying that Christian ideas succumbed to secularism, that's too simplistic. The idea of killing someone for the wrong ideas has been very common, I suppose, and probably still is. Admittedly, I can see this is heading towards relativism. Why would Christianity be exempt?
This is not really about Christian ethics, is it? I mean the fact that witches were killed using a clergyman's evidence is neither nor there. I guess it's distressing, but it doesn't tell us anything germane.
In the OP NEQ said "I would probably neither recognise nor understand many of the beliefs and practices of my predecessor Christians here".
Christians need to have a well thought-out position to answer legitimate questions about why, for example, people were tortured or killed for alleged heresy. And even why, until very recently, many Christians used passages in Proverbs to justify physical chastisement of children.
We can't just say they knew no better -because they had the Gospels too. As I opined upthread, I think Christian ethical thinking went wrong and has been slowly recovering.
I thought that change like this was inevitable and pervasive in any school of belief. For example, I remember reading in 18th century diarists and other writing about divine providence. Thus, if your child died, there was a good reason. This idea began to dwindle, didn't it? I'm not saying that Christian ideas succumbed to secularism, that's too simplistic. The idea of killing someone for the wrong ideas has been very common, I suppose, and probably still is. Admittedly, I can see this is heading towards relativism. Why would Christianity be exempt?
Because it alleges that God doesn't change, and guides his church in all truth through the Holy Spirit.
This is not really about Christian ethics, is it? I mean the fact that witches were killed using a clergyman's evidence is neither nor there. I guess it's distressing, but it doesn't tell us anything germane.
In the OP NEQ said "I would probably neither recognise nor understand many of the beliefs and practices of my predecessor Christians here".
Christians need to have a well thought-out position to answer legitimate questions about why, for example, people were tortured or killed for alleged heresy. And even why, until very recently, many Christians used passages in Proverbs to justify physical chastisement of children.
We can't just say they knew no better -because they had the Gospels too. As I opined upthread, I think Christian ethical thinking went wrong and has been slowly recovering.
I thought that change like this was inevitable and pervasive in any school of belief. For example, I remember reading in 18th century diarists and other writing about divine providence. Thus, if your child died, there was a good reason. This idea began to dwindle, didn't it? I'm not saying that Christian ideas succumbed to secularism, that's too simplistic. The idea of killing someone for the wrong ideas has been very common, I suppose, and probably still is. Admittedly, I can see this is heading towards relativism. Why would Christianity be exempt?
Because it alleges that God doesn't change, and guides his church in all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That reminds me of the unmoved mover, where the problem of movement is apparently solved; but then along comes the modern idea that everything is moving. I suppose you could translate this to ethics, and whatever you like.
This is not really about Christian ethics, is it? I mean the fact that witches were killed using a clergyman's evidence is neither nor there. I guess it's distressing, but it doesn't tell us anything germane.
Good question. The supposition here seems to be that the ethics of Christians are a different thing than Christian ethics. That seems hard to parse. The argument seems to be that Christians believe it is ethical to burn witches or heretics (and, contrariwise, unethical to leave witches and heretics unburned), often on religious grounds, but that this isn't "Christian ethics". It seems like an argument headed rapidly in the direction of Scotland.
It became ethical to execute heretics when the Church became part of the Roman system of government. Previously, Christians ('atheists')were punished because, by offending the gods, they were a danger to the state. Now, deviant believers were offending God. Therefore, they were a danger to the state . . .
It became ethical to execute heretics when the Church became part of the Roman system of government. Previously, Christians ('atheists')were punished because, by offending the gods, they were a danger to the state. Now, deviant believers were offending God. Therefore, they were a danger to the state . . .
Comments
That's not an episode I've heard of before, but from the link, it sounds appalling. Any right thinking person will say that those who were in that jeering mob were wrong to do what they did. From the way it's reported, it's clear that there were many who thought that way then, though how many of those lived in Jackson Mississippi I can't say. Those that were in that mob who are still alive should feel ashamed. I don't know which of them do and which don't. I suspect that there are those who do feel ashamed but would prefer not to talk about it, and probably hope others don't know they were there. However, I'm in a far away country and don't know any of them. You're not in a far away country, but I suspect you don't really know either.
However, I'd be surprised if there is anyone in their mid to late seventies who doesn't feel guilt and shame about something that they did, thought, didn't think about or took for granted when they were a teenager sixty years ago.
Trying it today, still thinking that way today, not feeling any guilt or shame today about behaving like that then or now, imagining one is entitled to behave like that, or ought to be entitled to behave like that if abolitionists, them liberals or the woke hadn't been allowed to get in the way, that's a quite different thing.
Maybe, but my other grandfather was racist AF, and likely (as an estate agent) a contributor to de facto segregation in Bristol. I've no desire to excuse his behaviour.
In the OP NEQ said "I would probably neither recognise nor understand many of the beliefs and practices of my predecessor Christians here".
Christians need to have a well thought-out position to answer legitimate questions about why, for example, people were tortured or killed for alleged heresy. And even why, until very recently, many Christians used passages in Proverbs to justify physical chastisement of children.
We can't just say they knew no better -because they had the Gospels too. As I opined upthread, I think Christian ethical thinking went wrong and has been slowly recovering.
I thought that change like this was inevitable and pervasive in any school of belief. For example, I remember reading in 18th century diarists and other writing about divine providence. Thus, if your child died, there was a good reason. This idea began to dwindle, didn't it? I'm not saying that Christian ideas succumbed to secularism, that's too simplistic. The idea of killing someone for the wrong ideas has been very common, I suppose, and probably still is. Admittedly, I can see this is heading towards relativism. Why would Christianity be exempt?
Because it alleges that God doesn't change, and guides his church in all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That reminds me of the unmoved mover, where the problem of movement is apparently solved; but then along comes the modern idea that everything is moving. I suppose you could translate this to ethics, and whatever you like.
Good question. The supposition here seems to be that the ethics of Christians are a different thing than Christian ethics. That seems hard to parse. The argument seems to be that Christians believe it is ethical to burn witches or heretics (and, contrariwise, unethical to leave witches and heretics unburned), often on religious grounds, but that this isn't "Christian ethics". It seems like an argument headed rapidly in the direction of Scotland.
Ethical or seen as being ethical?