|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2001 : 07:50:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
This particular document is known as the bloodiest document in history. This document is the Malleus Maleficarum (I hope I spelled that correctly). Whether you consider these true christians or not - they were following the instruction of jesus - You shall not suffer a witch to live.
I am not aware that Jesus said this, what verse? Witchcraft, along with other 'black' arts was prohibited in Deuteronomy. The punishment, I believe, was death by stoning. We execute people when the commit what we call "capital crimes", why is this so different? Are you saying that witchcraft and the like have a positive effect on society, and thus should be encouraged? I am all for freedom, but I do not condone it. God also calls us to judge righteously, and he gives us the right to execute people after a righteous judgement is issued. I don't know who Kramer and Sprenger are, but it sounds like they weren't. I'll look up the document later and read it. I believe it might be in one of the books I have.
OK, what is the point of demonizing a woman because she is an herbalist and attends to the ills of her community to promote your religion. This was the basis for the witch craze! The Malleus Mallificarum made brewing tea for a head cold illegal. Any woman caught doing such a thing could be accused as a witch. The Malleus Mallificarum used the accusation of witchcraft as a conviction of witchcraft and gave specific instructions on how to determine who was a witch and to get them to confess! This document was carried by the Inquisitors.
Witchcraft is as much a creation of christianity as god is of societies. They needed a way to wrest control of the commoner from those who were revered when instead the church should be revered not the local midwife. They even made midwifery illegal for a period of time. That's when you had to seek medical aid from doctors. Tho doctors knew no more than the midwife at the time.
The result of this document: between 3 and 9 million dead by means of brutal torture over the course of 400+ years. These people were no more witches than any of us posting here - including Valiant. These people were the victims of jealous vindictive people who: a) wanted their property (generally the inquistor and accuser wer awared the property after a signed confession was aquired - hell stick my feet in a pair of metal shoes and pour molten metal over them and I might just confess too) b) were angry with an individual for some reason c) wanted to get back at someone. There were even cases where a woman wanted to marry a particular person and accused her rivals of witchcraft.
Witchcraft was a construct of the church to scare people into its doors - nothing more and nothing less - also it filled its coffers with the ill gotten goods that it divided with the Inquisitor and the accuser.
Trish is quite right, here. I only have a few minor corrections. Witchcraft as it's connotative definition implies is a construct of Christianity. Even though Wiccans use this term, they have a different connotative definition. The term "Witch" in the Bible is a mistranslation of a word meaning poisioner. Most of the people killed in the time Wiccans call "The Burning Times" were midwives and herbalists. Others put to death were unpopular, strangers, or in competition with a more politically connected rival. Contrary to popluar belief, the Inquisition courts did not kill anyone. Civil courts did. The Inquisition courts would give the accused a chance to repent. If they did not, they were ex-communicated. The Civil courts were the ones that tortured and killed people in the name of God. Also, the body count for this madness was scaled back after several court documents, in particular one detailing the execution of 400 in one day, were proved to be forgeries. The current idea of scope is around 40,000.
The following link chronicles this research.
http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html
Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/10/2001 07:52:08 |
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 08:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
By "everything" and "something" here you must refer to conceivable actions, correct?
No.
Is not power the ability to perform certain actions?
quote:
quote:
Logical contradictions or type-crossings render such apparent actions into utter nonsense, and hence you cannot logically predicate them as abilities or inabilities of anyone.
As I have stated previously, "omnipotent" means "all-powerful." "All" means "everything," not just that which is logically possible. Even mathematics deal with things which are logically impossible, like the even roots of negative numbers, the so-called imaginary numbers, which like all deities, are products of the human imagination.
As I have stated previously, "all-powerful” means able to perform any action, but “creating a round square” is clearly not an action, it is mere GIBBERISH. It seems we're going around in circles here.
As to numbers (imaginary or otherwise) they are a mental abstraction, an idea that exists in the mind to describe some aspect of reality.
quote:
quote:
...atheists have seriously misconstrued one of the attributes that they assign to God...
I think the problem is not that atheists have misconstrued the concept of omnipotence, but that theists have neglected to consider all aspects of this concept in the light of logic. When cornered on this point, they typically claim that the deity is not bound by logic or "the wisdom of the world" and that "with god, all things are possible."
Would you prefer to debate with “typical” or “popular” theism or with the philosophically sophisticated variety? I opt for the latter as there is little challenge to be found in the former endeavor.
quote:
quote:
Theists define their god(s) variously as they will...We skeptics must confront the concept of God just as theists define it...
Yes, and their definitions are forever in a state of flux. Skeptics need to hold religionists to true definitions. Admittedly, this is akin to nailing Jello to a wall.
Not true. Eastern Orthodox dogma regarding the nature of God has been in steady state for nearly two millennia now, and Catholic doctrines h |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 09:14:01 [Permalink]
|
tergiversant, help me out here:
Is it not oxy-moronic to say "God is a being without limits, but only within the realm of logical limits"?
And an earlier issure I don't thing you addressed: Did God create logic (reality)? And therefore how then could God be limited by his own creation? [I've heard many an Apologist claim that God "chooses" to be limited by his creation...]
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/10/2001 09:15:18 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 10:18:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is it not oxy-moronic to say "God is a being without limits, but only within the realm of logical limits"?
Perhaps, but that is not what anyone in this forum is saying, at least not that I am aware. What I have been saying is that nonsense (contradictions and type-crossing) cannot describe anything, to include of course action, powers and limitations thereof.
quote:
And an earlier issue I don't thing you addressed: Did God create logic (reality)?
If God exists, then by definition He is the Creator of all reality. Logic is not a form of reality, though, merely an aspect of language. Most modern theologians would say the God did not create human language, fundamentalist “Tower of Babel” Biblical literalists notwithstanding.
quote:
And therefore how then could God be limited by his own creation? [I've heard many an Apologist claim that God "chooses" to be limited by his creation...]
The argument is not that God is limited by creation, but that we are. Statements such as “God cannot create a brightly large married bachelor” are simply not meaningful in human thought and language.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 07:46:01 [Permalink]
|
Interesting and provocative thread, folks, although it seems to swirl around christianiy a bit much, IMHO. And some posts to my taste, get a bit too close to ridicule.
Let us sit Gawd aside for a moment.
Does Evil exist?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."
-Voltaire |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 07:51:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Most of the people killed in the time Wiccans call "The Burning Times" were midwives and herbalists. Others put to death were unpopular, strangers, or in competition with a more politically connected rival. Contrary to popluar belief, the Inquisition courts did not kill anyone. Civil courts did. The Inquisition courts would give the accused a chance to repent. If they did not, they were ex-communicated. The Civil courts were the ones that tortured and killed people in the name of God. Also, the body count for this madness was scaled back after several court documents, in particular one detailing the execution of 400 in one day, were proved to be forgeries. The current idea of scope is around 40,000.
An interesting book on the factors leading to the medievel witch hunts is 'Europe's Inner Demons; An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch-Hunt' by Norman Cohn. I believe that the book is out of print but is worth while seeking out at the library or 2nd hand book store. Cohn argues that a number of religious and legal beliefs and systems came together by the mid 14th century that made the persecutions possible.
There are some scholars who are trying to revise the history of the Inquisition. Most of what we think we know about it is from northern European anti-Catholic sources and are accordingly biased.
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And an earlier issue I don't thing you addressed: Did God create logic (reality)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God exists, then by definition He is the Creator of all reality. Logic is not a form of reality, though, merely an aspect of language. Most modern theologians would say the God did not create human language, fundamentalist “Tower of Babel” Biblical literalists notwithstanding.
Didn't Thomas Aquinas have something to say about this. As I recall, he argued that God created logic as the controlling force in the universe. He seems to believe that logic is a reality unto itself not dependent upon human control. This is antithetical to your ideas above as to logic being a function of human language. It has been a long time (~20 years) since I've read any Aquinas and therefore my memory is somewhat sketchy on the topic.
Greg.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 08:54:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Witchcraft is as much a creation of christianity as god is of societies.
I'm not sure this is true. I recently ran across an article (sorry I don't have a link) discussing a researcher who thinks burned and scraped human bones found in certain Native American archaeological sites that some anthropologist have ascribed to cannibalism were in fact an attempt to destroy the bodies of supposed witches (I use the word here in the sense of evil sorcerer, not herbal healer or Wiccan). According to the researcher, a belief in witches was widespread in Native American cultures. I also read a book call "Shaka Zulu" many years ago which described pre-colonial African beliefs in witchcraft. This kind of idea is pretty widespread in tribal cultures so I doubt is was really introduced into European culture by the Christian Church. Not that they didn't find ways to use these pre-existing beliefs and fit them into their own religious doctrines.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 09:24:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I have been saying is that nonsense (contradictions and type-crossing) cannot describe anything, to include of course action, powers and limitations thereof.
I pointed out earlier that the ability to create an object heavier than one can lift is logically possible and independent of omnipotence. Only when you describe such a creator as 'omnipotent' does the logic break down. Unless I am missing something, the limitation is with the very concept of 'omnipotence,' not with logic. I conclude this reality by its very nature excludes omnipotence.
quote:
And an earlier issue I don't thing you addressed: Did God create logic (reality)?
quote:
If God exists, then by definition He is the Creator of all reality. Logic is not a form of reality, though, merely an aspect of language. Most modern theologians would say the God did not create human language, fundamentalist “Tower of Babel” Biblical literalists notwithstanding.
I guess modern theologians have a nasty habit of not answering the questions asked. The idea that an omniscient creator is not responsible for certain inconvenient portions of reality is tenuous at best, but I digress. Logic is hardly a mere component or consequence of language. In fact, language is a mere representation of human thought. Higher primates with lesions in the equivalent of Broca's Area are still perfectly capable of logical actions. Surely you realize the left hemisphere of the brain is by necessity a much more ancient development than a language-specific area?
quote:
[quote]
And therefore how then could God be limited by his own creation? [I've heard many an Apologist claim that God "chooses" to be limited by his creation...]
The argument is not that God is limited by creation, but that we are. Statements such as “God cannot create a brightly large married bachelor” are simply not meaningful in human thought and language.
/quote]
Correct. The important question is, "Can god create an object heavier than he can lift?"
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 21:31:14 [Permalink]
|
ok i have the ultimate proof of god's existance.
IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD I WILL KILL YOU.
you don't think its a very good proof do you? well keep that opinion to yourelf, or I WILL KILL YOU.
the CURCH of COMRADEBILLYBOY, where never is heard a discouraging word.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 23:56:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Whether you consider these true christians or not - they were following the instruction of jesus - You shall not suffer a witch to live.
quote:
I am not aware that Jesus said this, what verse? Witchcraft, along with other 'black' arts was prohibited in Deuteronomy.
This particular quote, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is Exodus 22:18. I guess it goes without saying (being Old Testament) that it was God and not Jesus who made this law. He set the Hebrews free, then He gave them a LOT of laws. Go figure. 
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 23:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Witch - in the typical Western Sense as an old crone with the wart and all. Conjuring spells to spoil things, etc.
Valiant - thanks for your insights. Sorry, it's been a while since I last looked anything up regarding this issue. But the numbers killed *during* (I never quite make myself clear on this  ) the inquisition keeps bouncing. I've never heard a number below 600,000. I found info last year that said between 3 and 9 million. That's where I pulled that number from (don't remember the source).
You are of couse correct that the Inquistors turned over the *witches* to the civil authority. In addition, I would like to point out that the Inquisitor and the local bishop/priest were required to shave the genitalia of accused/convicted witches to look for witches marks. The church had this concept that no blood be on its hands. However, they are as culpable for the deaths as any others.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 08/12/2001 23:04:15 |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 03:02:31 [Permalink]
|
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit."
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Well, do you speak honestly of your convictions? Or are you content to show, that Belivers, or in other words, humans, are capable of doing wicked acts? Does this disprove the existence of God? You quote words, written by man, that show only the inconsistences of man. I would suggest, that you are only tearing down "straw-men." You have left behind the question of the existence, or the non-existence, of a god, or gods for that matter. It is really just the other side of the same coin. To be honest, one must face the consequence of one's beliefs. Is that not correct? So I put it to you again.
Does Evil exist?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."
-Voltaire |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 03:36:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The argument is not that God is limited by creation, but that we are. Statements such as “God cannot create a brightly large married bachelor” are simply not meaningful in human thought and language.
Correct. The important question is, "Can god create an object heavier than he can lift?"
I'm sorry, but the question is gibberish. Phrases such as “a task impossible for one who can perform any task” and “rocks that cannot be lifted by someone who can lift anything.” are flatly contradictory. You may as well be asking if God can make a round square.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 03:47:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
And an earlier issue I don't thing you addressed: Did God create logic (reality)?
If God exists, then by definition He is the Creator of all reality. Logic is not a form of reality, though, merely an aspect of language. Most modern theologians would say the God did not create human language, fundamentalist “Tower of Babel” Biblical literalists notwithstanding.
I guess modern theologians have a nasty habit of not answering the questions asked. The idea that an omniscient creator is not responsible for certain inconvenient portions of reality is tenuous at best, but I digress.
I claimed above that most theologians would see language as a human construct, and that logic is an aspect of language. What question was thus left unanswered?
quote:
Logic is hardly a mere component or consequence of language. In fact, language is a mere representation of human thought.
Typically, logical rules are applied interchangably to the expressions of language (sentences) and the meanings thereby expressed (propositions), but more strictly it is the propositions, the meaning behind the language, which is governed by logic.
quote:
Higher primates with lesions in the equivalent of Broca's Area are still perfectly capable of logical actions. Surely you realize the left hemisphere of the brain is by necessity a much more ancient development than a language-specific area?
Logical actions? Such as? I've no idea what you are speaking about. When I say logic, I refer to such things as valid and sound inference in argumentation, and the meaningful interactions of such things sentences, negations, disjunct, conjuncts, etc., the typical fodder found in logic textbooks.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 06:44:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
The argument is not that God is limited by creation, but that we are. Statements such as “God cannot create a brightly large married bachelor” are simply not meaningful in human thought and language.
Correct. The important question is, "Can god create an object heavier than he can lift?"
I'm sorry, but the question is gibberish. Phrases such as “a task impossible for one who can perform any task” and “rocks that cannot be lifted by someone who can lift anything.” are flatly contradictory. You may as well be asking if God can make a round square.
I don't have any idea what this means: “a task impossible for one who can perform any task,” but I don't think it is analagous to the phrases I am talking about. Round squares are mutually exclusive propositions; I cannot logically postulate a being that would be able to create them. I can, however, logically postulate a being that would be able to create an object heavier than said being can lift. I cannot, however, label this being as omnipotent unless I use a qualifier. Either way, what we end up with is a definition of omnipotent that is bound on all sides by logic or a creator that is necessarily something less that wholly omnipotent.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
