Sure, and I never argued otherwise. The fact that he was able to point out an obviously unjust and despicable practice doesn’t detract from his horrible and unconscionable teachings on other subjects.
Sure, and I never argued otherwise. The fact that he was able to point out an obviously unjust and despicable practice doesn’t detract from his horrible and unconscionable teachings on other subjects.
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
But how do his teachings compare to others of the time, especially the Catholic Church? If you try to apply 21st Century morality to 16th Century ideas, you are bound to find ideas to consider “unconscionable.” People at large did some absolutely fucked up shit in the past, but in their times much of what they did was a societal norm
LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Other people also having fucked up opinions at the time also don’t justify the truly fucked up opinions and teachings of one specific person.
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
My point is that the act of trying to justify or judge the actions of a someone from 5 centuries ago is doomed to failure. The social norms and cultural context of the time absolutely matter when you’re reviewing history
LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Sorry, but that’s horseshit. Teaching something like this:
is an objectively reprehensible stance regardless of the cultural context. The rejection of morality, conscience, and Christian teaching by an ordained priest is absolutely worthy of judgment, and the fact that he lived 500 years ago doesn’t change that a bit.