Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: February ::
Re: Wittenberg and Paris
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0312  Friday, 9 February 2001

[1]     From:   Edmond Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Feb 2001 10:23:54 -0500
        Subj:   Wittenberg and Paris

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Feb 2001 13:11:33 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0308 Re: Wittenberg and Paris

[3]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Feb 2001 14:23:44 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0308 Re: Wittenberg and Paris


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmond Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 08 Feb 2001 10:23:54 -0500
Subject:        Wittenberg and Paris

Regarding Graham Bradshaw's recent posts on religious sects, Kenneth
Muir used to point out -- rightly, in my view -- that 17th-Century
theology was like modern economics:  there were so many schools of
thought, and so self-contradictory, that no one could be sure about the
truth of anything.

--Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 08 Feb 2001 13:11:33 -0500
Subject: 12.0308 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0308 Re: Wittenberg and Paris

Paul Rhodes opines:

>Purgatory is not an invention but a reality, otherwise the
>prayers for the dead mentioned throughout Holy Scripture would make no
>sense

Can someone help me with the name of this logical fallacy.  Is it
begging the question?  What do we call a syllogistic failure due to
rejection of an unexpressed major premise -- in this case, something
like "Holy Scripture is reliable"?

As Paul acknowledges,

>if one does accept the Bible as an authority, I really don't know how one
>can
>avoid a concept of Purgatory.

See Touchstone on "if."

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 08 Feb 2001 14:23:44 -0500
Subject: 12.0308 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0308 Re: Wittenberg and Paris

Paul S. Rhodes translates from the First Book of Heinrich Heine's Zur
Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland in which (he
suggests) the Jewish (turned Protestant) Heinrich Heine penned a very
lively and cogent defense of the indulgence trade.  Now it has been
suggested that Shakespeare was a Jew, so maybe he would have agreed with
Heine.  But if Heine's not being ironic, my name isn't Wilhelm.

Yours, Bill Godshalk
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.