Welcome to the php ebenezer's messageboard
see bottom for more info

HOME



back to main board collapse thread
Just a stirrup of an old debate  (19/06/22 20:40:18) Reply
    http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1011-76012018000100013
e

Further down the stem (21/06/22 10:58:58) Reply
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

    triggered a renewal of the debate of God and the evils of the world.

    I learnt a new word from this article

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
e

And a branch or two (21/06/22 11:23:20) Reply
    "The miasmal theory of plague was congenial to Moslem theology which held that the disease is a martyrdom, a mercy from God for a Moslem, and a punishment for an infidel. It followed that a Moslem should neither enter nor flee from a plague-stricken place, and that there was no contagion. Orthodox Islamic medical thought accepted the premise and the reasoning from it."

    "The Muqni'at provides a clear clinical description of the plague, explaining (as one would expect) the clinical features of the disease, especially predisposition to it, in terms of the prevailing humoral theories of the era. Ibn al-Khatib distinguished between the bubonic and pneumonic forms of the infection and recommended a number of measures for prophylaxis and treatment, none of which differs materially from those advised by other late medieval writers. What distinguishes his treatise is his emphasis on contagion (cil-adwa). "

    "How did Ibn al-Khatib reconcile his idea that plague was transmissible with the orthodox view, the revealed work (ash-har'), that plague was not contagious? He replied: "That infection exists is confirmed by experience, investigation, insight, personal observation,8 and reliable reports. These are the elements of proof." He was confident that received doctrine could be refuted by empirical observations if they were carefully made and confirmed by their recurrence and by independent observers. But he was experienced enough a diplomat and dialectician to anticipate the form rebuttal from strict constructionists would take. He continued: "One may not ignore the principle that a proof taken from tradition (Hadith laadwa), if observation and inspection show the contrary, must be interpreted allegorically." To the fundamentalist mind, allegorical interpretation of what it perceives as literal truth is anathema. To the orthodox mind, applying the test of reason to faith is likewise anathema. In an authoritarian-fundamentalist society that is enough for a charge of heresy.

    Precisely why Ibn al-Khatib was secretly strangled in a Granada prison cell in 1375 is not known, but the charge of heresy was probably supplemented by charges of malfeasance in office. "

    (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1808550/pdf/bullnyacadmed00090-0076.pdf)

    So rationality was impossible in this system. It became possible in western Europe - through long struggles with many participants against the stifling totalitarianism of the church - which finally collapsed. Totalitarianism was not eradicated; what we see these days, are strong attempt at re-establishing the evil totalitarian empires.
e

Re: Just a stirrup of an old debate  (29/06/22 15:27:29) Reply
    interesting read.

    so is this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibowitz-yeshayahu/

    read it carefully and slowly. maybe download it since plato server has many power outages.

    ill admit that this is not the jewish mainstream orthodox attitude, but in my mind i trace his philosophy to spinosa and maimonides and aristotle.

    i skipped a few and ignored a few along the way. true.

    this is linked to http://www.ebmb.de/http/mbs/board.php?sort=post&num=-1&thread=1639897408#1639897408

    and to another thread on maimonides i have yet to find.


    more later.

    my shoulder has received some steroids and a few other things and ill be able to type more soon. so watch out for my rants ;)
jm

benefits of batabases (29/06/22 15:33:08) Reply
    second related thread was http://www.ebmb.de/http/mbs/board.php?sort=post&num=-1&thread=1603639970
jm

Re: Re: Just a stirrup of an old debate  (30/06/22 19:26:42) Reply
    Thank you. A hard read. I couldn't take it more than half-way down.
    Much of what I read here, I think I have read before in Spinoza. A new track was the description of the circular relationship between faith and practice. A short loop indeed - and I recognise it from the time I found the time to having religious discussions with religious people or others of strong faith. My old teacher in primary school (a strong christian believer - but he had survived Sachsenhausen, so he may be excused) argued that the faith must be of God because it had lasted so long.
    In my old age I see most believers as reward seekers only - "and if there's nobody there, what have I lost?"

    The article reminds me of my general impression that some Jewish theological discussions are made by really sharp-shod analysts and debaters who really know their stuff. And to me it explains why so many secular Jews have become great scientists: they have taken their thorough methods with them.
e

religion  (04/07/22 07:12:33) Reply
    it would seem i have a lot to babble about this subject ;)
    to keep myself from scattering and getting lost over multiple threads, i would like to "hijack" this thread for this purpose, if its ok with you.

    more later, as time permits...
jm


come again

messageboard's PHP script is a courtesy of Laurent

 This board has been visited 258530 timesCurrent time is 15/08/22 06:51:46