Thread: Pope stepping down

I'm not sure that we today can judge the actions of people 70/100 years back. I feel that we should only look at the actions of those in the present and judge them with our current beliefs regarding appropriate behavior.
That's more than enough for us to think about.

Originally Posted by Johnus

I'm not sure that we today can judge the actions of people 70/100 years back. I feel that we should only look at the actions of those in the present and judge them with our current beliefs regarding appropriate behavior.
That's more than enough for us to think about.

Hmmmmm, I am not so sure I agree there, I have always been a firm believer in the saying "Those that do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it"
I think the judgement part of your statement I agree with, just so long as we keep the history alive.. Honestly I only became interested in this because of the history, something that hasn't happened in 600 years should garner our attention ...

Originally Posted by Johnus

I'm not sure that we today can judge the actions of people 70/100 years back. I feel that we should only look at the actions of those in the present and judge them with our current beliefs regarding appropriate behavior.
That's more than enough for us to think about.

How do you judge the people of the past by todays standards of conduct, especially if they were trying to or should have tried to live according to the standards of their day and age?

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

I had a post deleted as well, so did a few others, what's the big deal? When one somehow equates religion and Nazis in the same topic, you have to expect some ire directed your way.

Agreed, especially when some of those posts are off the original topic and seem agenda driven. How does a mans retirement equate with Nazis? The thread was about a Pontiff stepping down, the cause and possible effects. I am not Catholic and have no dog in the fight but for the life of me I dont see how one topic became the other. Maybe a seperate thread needed to be created.

Judging individuals and their actions in the past (and I'm talking distant past, not last Thursday) outside of their context is an exercise in futility.

For example if we look back at how physicians, the Church, governments, and individuals understood and dealt with the Black Death in the mid-14th century and judge them based on our own knowledge of bacteriological contagion in general and yersinia pestis in particular, their responses don't make any kind of rational sense to us today, but they *were* perfectly rational responses based upon their understanding the world. And by studying their actions in the wake of the Black Death we are able to learn a tremendous amount about contemporary mediaeval culture.

That having been said, it is extremely important that we study and understand the past. By studying people and societies on their own terms we are able to get a far greater understanding of them than if we were to impose our own beliefs, cultures, and perspective on them.

In my view there are things where it is appropriate to judge people by the current standards and where it is not.

For example, when an entity/organization claims values/principles of 'universal/eternal value', then examining whether they have adhered to these principles historically is more than fair, it is absolutely necessary. The top two areas for these are politics and religion, and the usual problem comes from their lack of separation between cultural/societal norms and 'immutable morals/principles'.
For example what is the scope of 'man' with respect to say rights? In our society there has been quite an evolution from 'privileged male' towards 'human being', but plenty of subgroups lag quite a bit. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church (and most mainstream religions) the top leadership is exclusively reserved for males. Even in US politics textual, or originalist constitutional frameworks do not allow female presidents; even the last amendment dealing with presidential issues (25th, 1967) uses 'he' with reference to the President.

As an example to the complementary application we could use the medicine/science treatment of diseases. Science explicitly claims only limited (but ever expanding) scope of knowledge, so the appropriate judgment should be made within the proper scope at the specific time. The exact same decision can be completely ethical or completely amoral depending on how much information/knowledge/understanding is available.

Originally Posted by gugi

In my view there are things where it is appropriate to judge people by the current standards and where it is not.

For example, when an entity/organization claims values/principles of 'universal/eternal value', then examining whether they have adhered to these principles historically is more than fair, it is absolutely necessary. The top two areas for these are politics and religion, and the usual problem comes from their lack of separation between cultural/societal norms and 'immutable morals/principles'.

Fair point, and I should say that I am *not* arguing in favour of cultural relativism and do not excuse heinous actions because 'that's what they did then' or 'that's what they do there'. I'm just saying that if we want to truly understand and learn from what people thought/said/did a century ago, then we had best seek to understand the context in which they thought/said/did those things, and consider them within that context. Then we will have a solid basis for critical (in every sense of the word) thought.

A fascinating part of studying history is seeing how and why supposedly immutable or universal 'truths' or 'values' change with time.

There is also the End-of-history illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by HamburgO

One of the posts you deleted was mine. It was completely on topic, pointedly and clearly in response to your post above, and quite accurately formulated. I challenge you to show otherwise. Obviously however, it was in "violation" of your religious convictions.
...

The extent to which religion continues to hold sway in our society of the 21st century, and, as evidenced by your actions, still does not tolerate dissent in spite of all its obvious problems never ceases to amaze. Be that as it may, I do not believe that arbitrary censorship based on religious belief is part of your duties or rights as a moderator on this forum. If I am wrong, of course go ahead and delete this message as well as my user account on this forum.

-oliver

The reason those posts were deleted was that I wanted an on-topic discussion.
You called me an apologist when it should be clear that I did not make apologies for anything, but was talking about the department of doctrine as it exists today. As such there is absolutely no reason to call me an apologist, and definitely not a reason to put me at the same level as a Nazi apologist.

The premise of your last post is also invalid.
The whole idea that either we have to leave your posts alone OR we are performing religious cencorship, is untrue.
There are a couple of other possibilities. One of them is that you have an axe to grind with anything religious, and are putting meaning in my posts which is not there.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

I had a post deleted as well, so did a few others, what's the big deal? When one somehow equates religion and Nazis in the same topic, you have to expect some ire directed your way.

I suppose that is true but the actions or lack of them take by the church during that period of history has long been a subject of heated debate.

Bob