- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeWell, many of the sites google listed indicated that the Catholic Church had little role in the witch burning. For example,
Give me a break. I trust google in this matter more than I trust a person who believes he has a supernatural friend looking out for him.
http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html
But again, I see little purpose in comparing the many articles which google provides, unless there is a critical evaluation of the credibility of these sites. Google does not do that.
I think your mind is curious. Why is it so difficult to give sources to any of the claims you have made? Where is the evidence that the Church opposed dissection of cadavers, vaccination and lightning rods? Is it that you are incapable of processing two thoughts simultaneously and therefore have expended all your cognitive powers on the subject of witch-hunts, or is it that you are incapable of admitting error?
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYou remind me of Holocaust deniers. I will not waste my time giving you evidence because you will deny it. Again there are hundreds of articles in google which I admit is not infallible, but I trust google a lot more than you. You are clearly a church apologist.
Well, many of the sites google listed indicated that the Catholic Church had little role in the witch burning. For example,
http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html
But again, I see little purpose in comparing the many articles which google provides, unless there is a critical evaluation of the credibility of these sites. Google does not do tha ...[text shortened]... nitive powers on the subject of witch-hunts, or is it that you are incapable of admitting error?
07 Mar 10
But again, I see little purpose in comparing the many articles which google provides, unless there is a critical evaluation of the credibility of these sites. Google does not do that.You are skeptical of google, but accept the bible hook line and sinker with no critical evaluation at all. You are amazing!!!!!!!
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KFrom your link:
Well, many of the sites google listed indicated that the Catholic Church had little role in the witch burning. For example,
http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html
But again, I see little purpose in comparing the many articles which google provides, unless there is a critical evaluation of the credibility of these sites. Google does not do tha ...[text shortened]... nitive powers on the subject of witch-hunts, or is it that you are incapable of admitting error?
The classic evocation of this deranged misogyny is the Malleus maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches), published by Catholic inquisition authorities in 1485-86.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeI am not skeptical of google. Google is an efficient data interrogator and very successfully finds relevant articles that match a data query. What it does not do is produce these sites or evaluate them. So simply saying 'I found it using Google' does not assure any credibility. This is very obvious since the second site that Google produced, when I searched for 'Catholic Church witch hunts, says this:
You are skeptical of google, but accept the bible hook line and sinker with no critical evaluation at all. You are amazing!!!!!!!
"Where the Catholic church was strong (Spain, Italy, Portugal) hardly any witch craze occurred ... the Reformation was definitely the first time that the church had to cope with a large-scale threat to its very existence and legitimacy."
http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html
Now if Google really was a source of historical truth, why would it list contradictory sites, one suggesting that the Catholic Church was responsible, the other indicating very little role?
Again, why are you unable to source your other claims that the Catholic Church opposed vaccination, lightning rods and dissection? This is getting ridiculous.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe site is in error. Malleus Maleficarum was actually condemned by the inquisition three years later. It was published by an inquisitor but never had support from the Catholic Church. I pointed this out some time ago.
From your link:
The classic evocation of this deranged misogyny is the Malleus maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches), published by Catholic inquisition authorities in 1485-86.
By the way, I am not actually putting forward any site as authoritative. I am just trying to show the ridiculousness of Joe's claim that Google is somehow a scholarly authority. Obviously the credibility of any site which Google lists must be tested. Saying 'Google lists it therefore I believe it' is the most idiotic argument ever to appear on this forum (and I really am not exaggerating here.)
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KIn the thirteenth century, Pope Boniface VIII (c1234-1303) issued a papal bull that decreed excommunication for anyone who dared to dissect a cadaver.
Google does not constitute a very high standard of evidence. It only links to sites which match the search query; it makes no assessment of the authority of these sites.
By the way, you also claimed that the Catholic Church opposed vaccination, lightning rods and the dissection of cadavers. No evidence for these claims has been forthcoming yet.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/medicine.html
07 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KWhy did you use a site that is in error to support your argument?
The site is in error. Malleus Maleficarum was actually condemned by the inquisition three years later. It was published by an inquisitor but never had support from the Catholic Church. I pointed this out some time ago.
By the way, I am not actually putting forward any site as authoritative. I am just trying to show the ridiculousness of Joe's claim that e most idiotic argument ever to appear on this forum (and I really am not exaggerating here.)
EDIT - Twice?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo; he did not. This myth has been discredited. The papal bull was called 'De Sepulturis' and it concerned burials, in which bodies were cut and boiled so that the bones could be transported for burial in another country. At least however you went to the effort to find some kind of evidence.
In the thirteenth century, Pope Boniface VIII (c1234-1303) issued a papal bull that decreed excommunication for anyone who dared to dissect a cadaver.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/medicine.html
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am kind of sick of having to explain myself several times over. Let me print it again:
Why did you use a site that is in error to support your argument?
EDIT - Twice?
By the way, I am not actually putting forward any site as authoritative. I am just trying to show the ridiculousness of Joe's claim that Google is somehow a scholarly authority. Obviously the credibility of any site which Google lists must be tested. Saying 'Google lists it therefore I believe it' is the most idiotic argument ever to appear on this forum (and I really am not exaggerating here.)
All I am showing is that Google is not in itself a scholarly source. It gives access to scholarly sites but it does not evaluate them. If you type in 'end of the world', it will take you to crazed doomsayers predicting millennial ends of the world. Should we give credence to that too. The fact is that it supports a lot of BS sites and we ought to be skeptical.
Do you need me to explain it again?
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI cannot find any support for this assertion of mine, so I'll accept it's false info.
No; he did not. This myth has been discredited. The papal bull was called 'De Sepulturis' and it concerned burials, in which bodies were cut and boiled so that the bones could be transported for burial in another country. At least however you went to the effort to find some kind of evidence.
07 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KWikipedia offers these details:
The site is in error. Malleus Maleficarum was actually condemned by the inquisition three years later. It was published by an inquisitor but never had support from the Catholic Church. I pointed this out some time ago.
By the way, I am not actually putting forward any site as authoritative. I am just trying to show the ridiculousness of Joe's claim that e most idiotic argument ever to appear on this forum (and I really am not exaggerating here.)
The Malleus Maleficarum[2] (Latin for "The Hammer of Witches", or "Der Hexenhammer" in German) is a famous treatise on witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer, an Inquisitor of the Catholic Church, and was first published in Germany in 1487.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
Which of those details is not correct?
EDIT - I will point out Kramer was "denounced by the Inquisition in 1490".
EDIT2 -
Almost all of the Malleus was written by one man: Heinrich Kramer (aka Henry Institoris). A German inquisitor of the late 15th century, Kramer was not a well-respected man. His views on Witchcraft were considered weird and extreme by most of his fellow clergymen, who continually opposed and hindered his trials. For instance, Kramer ran a large trial in Innsbruck in 1485, where 57 people were investigated. Nobody was killed. The bishop of Innsbruck became so irritated with Kramer's fascination with the Witches' sexual behavior that he shut down the trials, claiming that the devil was in the inquisitor, not the Witches.
Kramer wrote the Malleus to win the cooperation of his peers. The book isn't -- as some assume -- a guide to what most 15th century Christians believed about Witches. It's a minority opinion, written to convince the populace at large of the dangers of Witchcraft
http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/remembrance/_remembrance/malleus_maleficarum.htm
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is a related entry on Wikipedia:
I cannot find any support for this assertion of mine, so I'll accept it's false info.
Mos Teutonicus is a practise that was used mainly during the Second Crusades and after. It is when a body is taken and boiled in vinegar or water until the flesh falls off from the bones. The words "Mos Teutonicus" come from the Latin words meaning "German custom".
During the Crusades it was difficult to transport the bodies of dead wealthy knights back to Europe for a proper burial. Therefore instead of taking the body with the flesh still attached, it was boiled off and the bones were taken back. Often the bones were regarded as relics.
Despite the almost macabre fashion of this practise, it was regarded highly amongst the Catholic Church, although there remains little documentation of it. In 1300, however, Pope Boniface VIII issued the bull De Sepulturis, which forbade the practice.
The concern is not particularly about dissection but about boiling bodies down and even then using them as relics. Mind you, this practice did continue. St Thomas of Aquinas' body was boiled in a vat because his body was too fat to be carried.