This study attempts to sketch the biblical and Christian ethical dimensions of collective crime by analysing biblical texts and terminology relevant to the topic. The definition and critique of collective crime was born in Germany in the aftermath of political, philosophical and legal debates after the second world war.
Nach einem Vierteljahrhundert seit den gesellschaftlich-politischen Umwälzungen Ost- Mittel-Europas im Jahre 1989 sind die ungarischsprachigen reformierten Kirchen der Region immer noch vor die Frage gestellt: Mit welchen weitreichenden Konsequenzen ist zu rechnen, wenn die Verantwortung für die Geschichte und für die moralisch-sittliche Schuld erwähnt wird? Eine Reduktion der Schuldfrage auf die Feststellung, dass Kirchenleitende, Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer bzw. kirchliche Mitarbeiter zu ihren persönlichen Taten (d.h.
This paper examines the issue of absolution by Vladimir Jankélévitch. The absolving party’s role is to discover the cause external to man, deep down beneath human malice, which motivates the criminal actions. With an investigator’s zeal, an answer is sought to the question of “unde malum”? The old answer comes from dualism: the negative transcendent force, Satan, is the source of all sins. If there is an explanation, sin is mitigated and rage is attenuated, therefore explanations must be found. So one needs to explain – and this absolves one from all obligations of forgiveness.
Jesus refers to the Law when the Scribes and Pharisees accuse a woman of adultery: “the hands of the witnesses shall be the first raised against the person to execute the death penalty” (Deut 17,7). According to Károly Balázs, the word avnama,rthtoj ‘without sin’ used in the Gospel is etymologically related to ma,rturoj ‘witness’. If he is right, this might shed a new light on our interpretation of this pericope, as well as our view of sin in general. On the other hand, if there is no such relationship, the reference to the law raises the possibility of false witnessing.
The correct definition of sin is one of the main goals of Niebuhr’s theology. According to Scripture, sin is basically rebellion against God, meanwhile in society the same act generates injustice. The petty worry is considered the foreshadow of sin. By speaking of the myth of failure, Niebuhr does not intend to integrate sin into history but to portrait its constant reality and temptation. He distinguishes the morality of the individual in fighting against sin, from the morality of the community. At the same time, Niebuhr argues that pride is the source of man’s rebellion against God.