[mo]

The BBC reports:

Archaeologists in Germany say they may have found a lavatory where Martin Luther launched the Reformation of the Christian church in the 16th Century.

The stone room is in a newly-unearthed annex to Luther's house in Wittenberg.

Luther is quoted as saying he was "in cloaca", or in the sewer, when he was inspired to argue that salvation is granted because of faith, not deeds.

The scholar suffered from constipation and spent many hours in contemplation on the toilet seat.

[the_glassman]

[Turias]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
<snipped image of Martin Luther King>

You're a few hundred years off...

[d4nth3m4n]

"The scholar suffered from constipation and spent many hours in contemplation on the toilet seat"

this line makes me smile.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Let me get this straight: a guy taking a dump decides heaven is a reward for having faith, not for doing good? As a result, millions of people start acting holier than thou and ignore helping one another because they think they're going to be rewarded based on an idea in their head.

Was he disgruntled? Was he having a diificult BM?

[Person Man]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
a guy taking a dump decides heaven is a reward for having faith, not for doing good?

Was he disgruntled? Was he having a diificult BM?

Did you read the original posting. He suffered from constipation. Of COURSE he was having a "difficult BM..." which would make him a guy who really wants to take a dump deciding heaven is a reward for having faith and not for doing good.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by Person Man:
Did you read the original posting. He suffered from constipation. Of COURSE he was having a "difficult BM..." which would make him a guy who really wants to take a dump deciding heaven is a reward for having faith and not for doing good.

So, the new question I have is: Was ML rewarded for his faith when he got to heaven? Did he finally have his super-mega-ultra-mind-blowing-fantastic BM?

Or should he have done himself some good and laid off the saurkraut for a week? I bet anyone sharing a room with him would have been glad for that good deed too (if you know what I mean... toot toot).

[turtle777]

Originally posted by the_glassman:

Are you really so dumb ?

-t

[Superchicken]

Uhh, why the heck would anyone blame Luther for the reformation. If you want anyone to blame for it, blame the leadership of the Catholic Church for the previous hundreds of years who had in essence abandoned the basics of Christianity.
Luther did not encourage people to stop loving one another. However at that time people had mixed politics with Christianity thus came a lot of blood shed.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Luther did not encourage people to stop loving one another. However at that time people had mixed politics with Christianity thus came a lot of blood shed.

Actually, Luther did not even intend to break away from the Roman Catholic Church. He just wanted to discuss certain doctrines, which he found not to be founded on scripture.

The Reformation started as an afterthought of his 95 theses. Luther would have prefered that the Roman Catholic Church changed its position. Since this did not happen, and they kicked him out, he had no choice than pursuing an alternative to the Roman Catholic Church.

-t

[dialo]

"Having mis-spent my youth in grad school studying late medieval and early modern European intellectual history, I can now -- 20 years after leaving academia -- shed some valuable light for you and your readers (as well as for the BBC News).
When Luther said he made his discovery 'in cloaca' (literally translated 'on the toilet'), he was using one of a long list of late medieval theological-scatological phrases that meant 'in deepest humility' or in a state of profound 'worthlessness' (i.e., like ****).
So when Luther described arriving at his big theological conclusion 'in cloaca', he (like hundreds of other theologians of the time) was not making a literal reference to his bathroom routine.
If this sounds strange strange today, it shouldn't. The English language still uses lots of scat lingo (e.g., 'up **** creek without a paddle') to express extreme emotions or for emphasis. ('No ****!', you might say).
So once again, on major matters of import, the BBC News doesn't know '**** from Shinola' or its 'ass from a hole in the ground.'"

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...73516569721050

[mo]

Originally posted by dialo:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...73516569721050

It's just a metaphor, then. Too bad. It's not often a really historically important toilet is found.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
Was ML rewarded for his faith when he got to heaven? Did he finally have his super-mega-ultra-mind-blowing-fantastic BM?

heh, this is good stuff. if he was rewarded i bet it was on a "grand" toilet. i know if i had to release a bm of the size luther probably did. I would definitely want it to be on a God's toilet.

[MacNStein]

Holy sh*t...

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by dialo:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...73516569721050

Quite the irony too; is it literal, or figurative? Same dilemma with interpreting The Bible.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Quite the irony too; is it literal, or figurative? Same dilemma with interpreting The Bible.

No dilema in 99% of the cases, just a question of proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

-t

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by turtle777:
No dilema in 99% of the cases, just a question of proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

-t

Really? 99% of the time? Fantastic. You must really know the Bible writers minds then, and academia must seek you out.

I wish I had the ability to distinguish what is literal, figurative, allegory, or metaphorical 99% of the time when reading such historical texts.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Really? 99% of the time? Fantastic. You must really know the Bible writers minds then, and academia must seek you out.

I wish I had the ability to distinguish what is literal, figurative, allegory, or metaphorical 99% of the time when reading such historical texts.

It's actually not THAT hard, at least if you work with proper defintions of the categories "literal, figurative, allegory, or metaphorical". A lot of confusion comes from different assumptions and definitions.
Secondly, it is of course important what stance you take towards the Bible in general. Do you believe it is God's word, or is it just tales with some moral truth.
Thirdly, it depends on what place you take. Are you studying the Bible deductivley or inductively.

I do not claim that I get it right ALL the time, but there are not that many passages where it is totally unclear whether it is literal or figurative.

-t

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Really? 99% of the time? Fantastic. You must really know the Bible writers minds then, and academia must seek you out.

I wish I had the ability to distinguish what is literal, figurative, allegory, or metaphorical 99% of the time when reading such historical texts.

It's actually more involved than that. There are 4 modes of interpretation of scripture, many (or all) of which are used at the same time, in the same passage.

P'shat - the literal meaning
Remez - the allegorical meaning
Drush - the homiletic meaning
Sod - The mystical/esoteric meaning

With study and introspection, it's not too very difficult to find the meaning(s) of a specific passage. Too often though, it's not blatantly obvious, and nor should it be.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's actually more involved than that. There are 4 modes of interpretation of scripture, many (or all) of which are used at the same time, in the same passage.

P'shat - the literal meaning
Remez - the allegorical meaning
Drush - the homiletic meaning
Sod - The mystical/esoteric meaning

With study and introspection, it's not too very difficult to find the meaning(s) of a specific passage. Too often though, it's not blatantly obvious, and nor should it be.

No, I know the structure for Biblical interpretation. the thing is, it all comes back to a subjective opinion. For example, who sets up the criteria for deducing how a passage should be interpreted? One man's inspired tale is another's bogus fairy tale. The criteria is not objective, and to say introspection yields truth, or enlightenment, is to adnit that a divine, or spiritual presence is in fact present. That would imply that the believers of a faith have the correct interpretation for a given passage.

For example, your approach above is a very particular Jewish one.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by turtle777:
It's actually not THAT hard, at least if you work with proper defintions of the categories "literal, figurative, allegory, or metaphorical". A lot of confusion comes from different assumptions and definitions.
Secondly, it is of course important what stance you take towards the Bible in general. Do you believe it is God's word, or is it just tales with some moral truth.
Thirdly, it depends on what place you take. Are you studying the Bible deductivley or inductively.

I do not claim that I get it right ALL the time, but there are not that many passages where it is totally unclear whether it is literal or figurative.

-t

Exactly, so we can not say that 99% of the time we all know, and agree on, how a passage should be interpreted, it is a subjective view based on one's position. Not clear-cut, even amongst people who fall into the categories you listed above.
See, therein lies the problem. Bible is the word of God believer (Person A) might use common thinking in deducing what is what, but Bible is the word of God believer (Person B) might be at complete odds with what Person A deduces. So in essence, it is all subjective opinion when it comes to understanding what is literal, figurative, etc. Which is what I was getting at originally, that there is, naturally, a dilemma when it omes to Biblical interpretation, otherwise we'd have enormous harmony in understanding amongst Biblical scholars, laypeople, and others.

For instance, one person might assume this passage is literal, other figurative "And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

Then again, one of the biggest dilemmas, even for the early Church, is the idea of the Son of God.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's actually more involved than that. There are 4 modes of interpretation of scripture, many (or all) of which are used at the same time, in the same passage.

P'shat - the literal meaning
Remez - the allegorical meaning
Drush - the homiletic meaning
Sod - The mystical/esoteric meaning

With study and introspection, it's not too very difficult to find the meaning(s) of a specific passage. Too often though, it's not blatantly obvious, and nor should it be.

Aren't there other simultaneous things to interpret at the same time? If you're going to be more than an ontological essentialist, shouldn't a student of scripture also try to root out political, economic, psychological, sexual identity, authority and other distinguished meanings? I mean, this is the 21st century. There's more than 4 ways to read a book.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
No, I know the structure for Biblical interpretation. the thing is, it all comes back to a subjective opinion. For example, who sets up the criteria for deducing how a passage should be interpreted? One man's inspired tale is another's bogus fairy tale. The criteria is not objective, and to say introspection yields truth, or enlightenment, is to adnit that a divine, or spiritual presence is in fact present. That would imply that the believers of a faith have the correct interpretation for a given passage.

For example, your approach above is a very particular Jewish one.

Typically, I'll look at the context of the scripture from my own personal view, then read the insights of other commentators (usually those with greatly varying views), say, Kaplan, Calvin, and Asimov, and then drawing my own conclusions.

Unlike many supposed authorities on the subject, I don't believe there is "one true" interpretation of and type of scripture. Some views are more esteemed and noteworthy than others, but it really comes down to what it says to you.

My father, for instance, would sit with his head buried in the Matthew Henry commentary and take it accept it completely. With a great deal of prodding on my part, I was able to get him to look at other views and form a more educated opinion. Since then, his personal understanding and quality of study has grown exponentially.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
Aren't there other simultaneous things to interpret at the same time? If you're going to be more than an ontological essentialist, shouldn't a student of scripture also try to root out political, economic, psychological, sexual identity, authority and other distinguished meanings? I mean, this is the 21st century. There's more than 4 ways to read a book.

Those 4 are typically what Biblical study all boils down to, but yes, idioms, cultural views, and all manner of different types of influences have to be taken into account. As for this being the "21st century", it's best to get into the time and mindset in which the piece was written to better grasp the context. That's one reason why certain older commentaries are invaluable (the Talmud, early church fathers, etc.). Makes it much easier to get into the minds of those original authors.



*edit for a change in wording.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Are you really so dumb ?

-t

Are you f#ckers really so uptight and comatose as not to realize when a ****ing joke hits you right in the face?

No need to answer the question. I know the answer.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Are you f#ckers really so uptight and comatose as not to realize when a ****ing joke hits you right in the face?

Can you explain the joke ?
Because I don't get what was supposed to be funny about that !

-t

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Can you explain the joke ?
Because I don't get what was supposed to be funny about that !

-t

The guy shares the same ****ing name except one has Dr. before and Jr. after his name. They are separated by 383 years, and I post a picture of one, because obviously anyone smart enough to find their way on the internet and type a coherent sentence should know the difference. It's so obvious, that it's funny. Yet you question if someone can be that dumb? Surely I am not, but there are people out there that are just that dumb.

Something that is painfully obvious=funny.

[wdlove]

It is always interesting when scientists can find items of historical interest.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
The guy shares the same ****ing name except one has Dr. before and Jr. after his name.

You are so dumb !

How is Martin Luther and Martin L. King the same ?
Or does the last name not count ?

Originally posted by the_glassman:
It's so obvious, that it's funny.
Something that is painfully obvious=funny.

The only thing that is obvious to me:



-t