Slavery

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Well its all well and good to judge other peoples moral standards (if you believe in objective morality) according to objective criteria.
But I guess what gets my goat is people getting on their high horse without seemingly even trying to get into the mindset of other times or to understand how and why people thought the way they did.

The fact is people from the past are as human as we are, and speaking for myself alone I find when I look closely at them I find it very hard to judge them any harsher than modern people, there are reasons, logical, elaborate, thought out reasons for why they thought what they did, and those reasons on the face of it, when looked at in an unbiased way, really make as much sense as anything we can come up with.

To be honest it feels like people are attacking my friends when people look down on the past like that and treat them like children. Most written work which has survived, especially from before the printing press, was produced by people far greater than I will ever be, even when we disagree, we should do so with humility. Disagreement doesn't mean dismissal or haughtiness or the assumption of our inherent superiority or even the assumption that we are necessarily correct although we can do nothing else but assume so until we change our minds.

 

[b&wpac4]

To be honest it feels like people are attacking my friends when people look down on the past like that and treat them like children. Most written work which has survived, especially from before the printing press, was produced by people far greater than I will ever be, even when we disagree, we should do so with humility. Disagreement doesn't mean dismissal or haughtiness or the assumption of our inherent superiority or even the assumption that we are necessarily correct although we can do nothing else but assume so until we change our minds.

Same way I feel every time I see posts that attack and dismiss all the Pharisees.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Same way I feel every time I see posts that attack and dismiss all the Pharisees.

I think when people talk about Pharisees they are not generally talking about the historical Pharisees but an attitude toward morality based in shame and pride rather than in guilt.
And a very stereotyped one at that.

Some shame based systems of social control in the pre-Modern Far East are... fascinating, to say the least.

I should so have become an anthropologist.... maybe they'll let me do it for an MA...

 

[b&wpac4]

I think when people talk about Pharisees they are not generally talking about the historical Pharisees but an attitude toward morality based in shame and pride rather than in guilt.

I have seen it relating to the historical Pharisees from time to time.

 

[Chesterton]

Careful. I didn´t mean to say you made a strawman. I said you accused the OP of making a strawman, and that´s exactly what you did.

No I didn't accuse him, I just asked what the idea underlying of the question was because I didn't understand.

Precedent. What do we think about those who lived 500 years ago? We tend to wonder how they could believe a lot of the things they believed, behave the way they behaved. If you think that the way we live right now is going to stay exactly the same over the next 500 years, then I think you need to study history a lot more.

You're right, but how would those who lived 500 years ago think of us? One example: the implementation of democracy. If they heard "all men are created equal" they'd probably laugh their butts off. We would too when we think about it, but we believe it's a useful bit of make-believe. They might not think so.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I have seen it relating to the historical Pharisees from time to time.

I am surprised most people know much about the historical Pharisees. Apart from the Bible, what in popular culture really references them?

 

[b&wpac4]

I am surprised most people know much about the historical Pharisees. Apart from the Bible, what in popular culture really references them?

Depends on what you mean by "Historical". Do you view the portrait of them painted in the NT as being the historical Pharisees or something else?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Depends on what you mean by "Historical". Do you view the portrait of them painted in the NT as being the historical Pharisees or something else?

Well it is a piece of historical evidence, but if you were to construct a historical view of something you'd want more than one source no?

 

[b&wpac4]

Well it is a piece of historical evidence, but if you were to construct a historical view of something you'd want more than one source no?

I would, and at least one that isn't completely biased against the group that you researching.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

and at least one that isn't completely biased against the group that you researching.

For some groups (not necessarily this one, I never researched it myself) that's basically impossible.
But yeah, ideally you want a range of sources from different angles.

 

[b&wpac4]

For some groups (not necessarily this one, I never researched it myself) that's basically impossible.
But yeah, ideally you want a range of sources from different angles.

I have done my research on the group.

 

[quatona]

No I didn't accuse him, I just asked what the idea underlying of the question was because I didn't understand.

Come on.
If you take offense from the word "accusing" be my guest (and I guess I agree that a softer word would have done the job quite fine), but as far as I can see you clearly did posit that the underlying notion that people believe they get their morals from the bible was inaccurate.

 

[Chesterton]

...as far as I can see you clearly did posit that the underlying notion that people believe they get their morals from the bible was inaccurate.

Yes I said that, and I do think that notion's inaccurate. I just asked the OP why he thought differently; he hasn't responded, but you have, and I think I understand your reason, so thanks.