Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,284 Year: 5,541/9,624 Month: 566/323 Week: 63/143 Day: 6/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 143 of 380 (712660)
12-05-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
12-05-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
They are called the books of Moses not only because he wrote them or authorized their writing but because they are about him and his times. The idea that somehow generations of Israelites and Christians managed to overlook the fact that it reports on Moses' death is just weird.
Weird yet true. Here, for example, is what Answers In Genesis has to say about it:
The New Testament attributes all the books from Genesis through Deuteronomy as being the writings of Moses. So, to attack the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Old Testament then is to attack the truthfulness of the rest of the biblical writers and Jesus Himself. [...] There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
And they have some hard words to say about you:
The attack on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is nothing less than an attack on the veracity, reliability, and authority of the Word of Almighty God.
Shame on you, Faith, attacking the veracity of God's word. Tut tut.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 12:35 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 148 of 380 (712666)
12-05-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
12-05-2013 6:30 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
In fact there is a reason Protestants would be more peaceable than Catholics, jar. It's not because as people Protestants are any better than anybody else, it's because Protestant DOCTRINE is peaceable and Catholic doctrine is not. I'm talking about real Protestants of course, who really believe the Bible. The Bible forbids violence and murder.
Catholic doctrine on the other hand, actual written doctrine you understand, prescribes torturing and killing those who dissent from its doctrines. That's what the Inquisition was all about, it's what the pogroms against the Jews were all about, and there's every reason to believe it's what the Nazi holocaust was all about ...
So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. --- Martin Luther, On The Lies of the Jews
Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance ... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp. --- Bernhard Rust, Hitler's Minister of Education, quoted in the Volkischer Beobachter, August 25, 1933.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 6:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 154 of 380 (712673)
12-05-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
12-05-2013 7:33 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
There is some reason ...
Such as?
... to believe that parts of the Lies of the Jews are a forgery. I'd like to see a photo of the original.
OK. Here's a picture of the frontispiece.
It's not a manuscript, Faith, it's a printed book. Printed in Wittenberg during Luther's lifetime. Note the date --- 1543. If he didn't write it, he could always have said so.
And if it is genuine all I can say is that Luther hadn't completely freed himself of the thinking of his Catholic past.
Yeah, that's the trouble with Luther, too darn Catholic.
The exception always proves the rule don't you know.
No. No I don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 7:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 8:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 157 of 380 (712679)
12-05-2013 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
12-05-2013 8:04 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
Yes I've seen the cover, what's needed is to know if there were different editions that had different statements in them.
I can find no evidence for this. If The Lies Of The Jews was originally a book about what splendid chaps the Jews were, and all the anti-semitism was added to The Lies Of The Jews after Luther's death, you'd think someone would have noticed it by now. Also that he'd have gone with a different title.
Sorry you don't know about exceptions to rules proving the rules, it's a very common and valid principle.
No it isn't. It's a thing dumb people say.
Again, four hundred years passed during which no Protestant violence against Jews occurred, on the basis of anything Luther wrote or otherwise. How would YOU explain that?
That's something of a non sequitur, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 8:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 11:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 169 of 380 (712744)
12-06-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
12-05-2013 11:53 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
No, I wouldn't expect it to have had a completely different attitude to the Jews, but that it might not have had some of the more ferocious directives for how to deal with them. You're probably right about possible other editions, but that IS the sort of information that often gets suppressed and can be found only through circuitous channels.
Paranoid much?
All the copies of the original might have been destroyed or a few could have survived where they would be hard to find. And of course it would be disputed and so on. That sort of thing.
But we have the 1543 edition. That's why I can show you photographs of it. If it was different from other later editions, surely Lutheran scholars would be shouting it from the rooftops rather than wringing their hands over what an anti-semite Luther was.
I see no non sequitur. There were no Protestant pogroms, that was a Catholic thing.
That was a Russian thing. Which happened in regions where Russian Orthodoxy was the official religion. Which is why they are described by the Russian word "pogrom".
Pogrom - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 11:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 1:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 380 (712755)
12-06-2013 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
12-06-2013 1:13 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
OK, I couldn't make out the date on the cover you showed.
MDXLIII. It's in quite big letters.
I COULD still wonder what was actually in it of course.
Well, if it contained nothing anti-semitic I'm sure the Lutherans would have mentioned it somewhere.
Yes, thanks for reminding me about the word "pogrom," though Russian and Eastern Orthodoxy aren't all that different from Catholicism.
Nor is Protestantism, frankly.
And such things did happen in Europe. There were the Jewish ghettos with the yellow stars that were foisted on the Jews by the Catholics, and there was the Jedwabne massacre in Poland during WWII which was carried out by the Catholics of the town. Probably lots more but I'm not up on it all.
And the Tredegar riots ... oh, Baptists. Whoops. In staunchly Protestant Wales. And the Hep-Hep riots, which spread to Lutheran Denmark. (I can't find out who the German participants were.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 1:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 175 of 380 (712757)
12-06-2013 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
12-06-2013 1:50 PM


You are looking at evidence that is ALWAYS IN THE PRESENT, where else could it be?
But this is true of everything. It's true of the evidence for last Wednesday and for what happened then. Am I allowed to believe in last Wednesday?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 1:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 182 of 380 (712768)
12-06-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:20 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
Golly gee, you love those special exceptions, don't you? Comparing a spontaneous non-religiously-motivated riot over local conditions that didn't massacre anybody with the programmed religiously-motivated intentional and cruel massacres of heretics by the RCC. And you apparently did find a real "Protestant" uprising against the Jews, but you impose the term "Protestant" on it because it too was not religiously motivated as the Catholic pogroms were.
A miner I spoke to, Fred Hopkins, had been a child at the time, and he clearly recalled calls of 'let's get the Jews', and Welsh hymns being sung as they descended on the shops, suggesting a pointedly religious element to the attacks.
Afterwards the Baptists, resurgent after the Welsh Revival, refused to denounce the violence.
History debate over anti-Semitism in 1911 Tredegar riot - BBC News
OK, apparently you'd rather hate us Protestants than the RCC. I guess I'm getting used to it.
I don't hate either group, but I don't feel so indulgent to Protestants (or any other group) as to whitewash their history.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 380 (712770)
12-06-2013 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:27 PM


You can replicate evidence for interpretations of things IN the present. You can replicate how anything behaves in the present to prove a theory about something that is always observable in the present. That is the case with laboratory science, with physics and genetics and chemistry etc. You cannot test something that occurred in the past, meaning something historical, one-time events in the past, by evidence in the present.
So am I allowed to believe in last Wednesday? Simple question.
You can know the past only by witnesses who were there.
But how do I know whether the witnesses were there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 187 of 380 (712776)
12-06-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:47 PM


If you have witnesses to last Wednesday, and it would seem you have millions of them, then you have good evidence for the existence of last Wednesday.
"It would seem"? Sure, it seems that way, like it seems that the Earth is old. But how do I know?
Maybe you DON'T know if witnesses were "there," in which case you don't have evidence do you?
I do claim to know that the witnesses of last Wednesday were present. What I want you to think about is the basis on which I can reasonably claim to know this. How do I know?
---
Take another example. I see an apple in a supermarket. I can find no witnesses who claim to have seen it grow. Am I entitled to conclude that it grew on an apple tree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 189 of 380 (712784)
12-06-2013 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
12-06-2013 3:27 PM


How do you know the witnesses were present? Newspapers, television, people you talk to every day who were there, your own personal experience of events of Wednesday. Same answer as above: you know by trusting the witnesses plus your own experience. Is this a sophistic question or what?
No, I'm making a point. I don't have access to the past. What I have is access to people, in the present, claiming to be witnesses.
Yes you are entitled to believe it grew on an apple tree because you trust the witnesses to apples growing on apple trees through your life who have told you so, and/or you believe your own experience of apples growing on that particular kind of tree.
Welcome to uniformitarianism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 197 of 380 (712802)
12-06-2013 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
12-06-2013 4:21 PM


Yes, that's what you have, that's all you have, that's all any of us ever have. And what IS your point?
Just beyond your grasp.
Don't think so. Uniformitarianism is a theory that applies to a completely unwitnessed situation ...
Like the growth of the apple, then.
That's according to the theory that is. For me, I have lots of witnesses in the Bible ...
That sounds awfully uncomfortable for them. How did you manage to fold them so small? Did they struggle? And before you so cruelly compressed them between the pages of your favorite book, how did you find out that they were witnesses? Witnesses to what? Surely not to the events in the Bible, all those people would be dead, wouldn't they?
but all you have is your specuiations about an unwitnessed past, coupled with others' speculations, but all speculations, no witnesses, no testability, no replicability.
Ah, but y'see, this is not true. It's something you made up. Which kinda vitiates your argument, don't you think?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 198 of 380 (712805)
12-06-2013 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
12-06-2013 7:55 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
The Bible is about God acting in history before witnesses who tell us what they saw and why they believed in the God who did what they saw. There is nothing like that in the other religions ...
1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.
... read on ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 7:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 380 (712828)
12-07-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
12-07-2013 2:04 AM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
The totally fictional and perfectly silly Book of Mormon purports to be a history but not for the purpose of proving God's reality and character as is the Bible.
They seem fairly similar to me. I mean, they both have stories about God doing magic, what's the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 223 of 380 (712877)
12-07-2013 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
12-07-2013 2:00 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
I feel very sorry for you that you can't tell the difference.
If you can, you're keeping awfully quiet about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024