Persecution as Proof of Salvation

[tabibito]

Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.

[One Bad Pig]

Who's Martin Luther?

We in the post-religious world choose reason over dogma.

Thanks, I needed the laugh.

[Adrift]

Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.

Do you have a copy of the Erlangen Edition volume 16? Have you actually read pages 142-148? Are you sure those quotes aren't from one of the Table Talks, or some other source?

[tabibito]

Do you have a copy of the Erlangen Edition volume 16? Have you actually read pages 142-148? Are you sure those quotes aren't from one of the Table Talks, or some other source?

No, I haven't read them. Nor have I drawn on sites antagonistic to Christianity on this issue. There are Christian sites and works acknowledging the statements of Luther, and trying to make it seem that he was not dismissive of reason, but of human reason. Those arguments aren't exactly compelling.
Online Christian sites quoting Luther:

Fire and Reason

What are we to make of these quotes by Martin Luther about reason? Are they out of context (or misquoted), or was this really his attitude regarding reason?

Biblical Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ .. Google Books ... Clifford B. McManus pp 254-259

Potter's House Ministries:

[Adrift]

No, I haven't read them.

Ok.

Nor have I drawn on sites antagonistic to Christianity on this issue.

I don't recall saying that you did.

There are Christian sites and works acknowledging the statements of Luther, and trying to make it seem that he was not dismissive of reason, but of human reason. Those arguments aren't exactly compelling.
Online Christian sites quoting Luther:

I'm certain Luther said some silly things about faith and reason (he said all sorts of ridiculous things, and often contradicted himself in later writings). I'd love to see the context of those quotes.

The reason I asked you about the exact source is because I wanted to see if you knew what you were talking about or if you were just guessing based on a quick Google search. Looks like you were just guessing. As far as you know, firstfloor's specific quotes do not come from the Erlangen Edition of Luther's Works as you asserted. None of the sources you cited actually specify where firstfloor's exact quotes come from. It looks like the closest you can get is a quote from Walter Kaufmann in a book that isn't about Luther at all.

So, yeah, lilpixie was right when she said, "searching your soundbites, on Google, doesn't bring up what works these soundbites came from."

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok.



I don't recall saying that you did.



I'm certain Luther said some silly things about faith and reason (he said all sorts of ridiculous things, and often contradicted himself in later writings). I'd love to see the context of those quotes.

The reason I asked you about the exact source is because I wanted to see if you knew what you were talking about or if you were just guessing based on a quick Google search. Looks like you were just guessing. As far as you know, firstfloor's specific quotes do not come from the Erlangen Edition of Luther's Works as you asserted. None of the sources you cited actually specify where firstfloor's exact quotes come from. It looks like the closest you can get is a quote from Walter Kaufmann in a book that isn't about Luther at all.

So, yeah, lilpixie was right when she said, "searching your soundbites, on Google, doesn't bring up what works these soundbites came from."

I ask because the stuff, with those quotes, I am finding seems to come from primarily anti-Christian/anti-Lutheran/ anti-protestant sources. Besides, Martin Luther was a very prolific writer that wrote thousands upon thousands of pages of stuff. Throwing up a quote, from a man that wrote dozens of works, doesn't help nor does it tell us where to find it. I found quite a few of his works on Gutenberg, but I'm not searching though over 20 works, without something what what specific work they are talking about (besides, considering how much he wrote, even if he did say what is claimed he said, I'm pretty sure a man that wrote that many books wouldn't seriously reject reason as 'the devil' and likely wasn't being nearly as literal as is being claimed).

[tabibito]

It takes some sifting to make sure that a quote is not being deliberately misrepresented. For that reason, I avoided atheist sites and Church of Rome sites that made reference to the quotes, and looked for those which might stand a chance of being reasonably sympathetic: as here,

Randal Rouser

(Complaining in the original post about atheists cherry picking six lines out of an entire corpus, then in the follow up discussion saying:)

No-one is denying that the quotes are accurate - there are some saying that the quotes are cherry picked or quote mined and taken out of context. But so far, I haven't found anyone who actually rebutted by citing the passages IN a more complete context.


ETA:

And having said that, I have finally found one that actually does do a passable job of a rebuttal:
Faith and Reason in Martin Luther
[October 1957]
By Siegbert W. Becker

[lilpixieofterror]

It takes some sifting to make sure that a quote is not being deliberately misrepresented. For that reason, I avoided atheist sites and Church of Rome sites that made reference to the quotes, and looked for those which might stand a chance of being reasonably sympathetic: as here,

Randal Rouser

(Complaining in the original post about atheists cherry picking six lines out of an entire corpus, then in the follow up discussion saying:)

No-one is denying that the quotes are accurate - there are some saying that the quotes are cherry picked or quote mined and taken out of context. But so far, I haven't found anyone who actually rebutted by citing the passages IN a more complete context.

I seriously doubt that a man who wrote so many thesis, commentaries, and treatises would seriously be 'anti reason' as some of his detractors are trying to claim and it is likely that such a quote is out of context, but again, without the specific work... can't say much more.

[Adrift]

It takes some sifting to make sure that a quote is not being deliberately misrepresented. For that reason, I avoided atheist sites and Church of Rome sites that made reference to the quotes, and looked for those which might stand a chance of being reasonably sympathetic: as here,

Randal Rouser

(Complaining in the original post about atheists cherry picking six lines out of an entire corpus, then in the follow up discussion saying:)

No-one is denying that the quotes are accurate - there are some saying that the quotes are cherry picked or quote mined and taken out of context. But so far, I haven't found anyone who actually rebutted by citing the passages IN a more complete context.

But you still don't know for certain whether or not firstfloor's specific quotes came from the Erlangen Edition of Works, volume 16, Correct? You were just guessing.

[tabibito]

But you still don't know for certain whether or not firstfloor's specific quotes came from the Erlangen Edition of Works, volume 16, Correct? You were just guessing.

No - that is attested time and again over a large number of sites. However - the piece (RTF file) I added to my prior post (172) just now does make a plausible rebuttal to the atheist use of the quotes. It wouldn't be much use trying to use the Erlangen work anyway IF available information is accurate - it hasn't been translated into English.

[lilpixieofterror]

But you still don't know for certain whether or not firstfloor's specific quotes came from the Erlangen Edition of Works, volume 16, Correct? You were just guessing.

I'm surprised FF didn't go for this soundbite:

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
GK Chesterton

Think our skeptic friend would understand what was being argued for or against?

[Adrift]

No - that is attested time and again over a large number of sites.

Which sites? So far you haven't shown any sites that specify that the exact quotes from firstfloor are from the Erlangen Edition.

However - the piece (RTF file) I added to my prior post (172) just now does make a plausible rebuttal to the atheist use of the quotes.

I didn't see anything in the file you attached that addressed the specific quotes that firstfloor cited.

Just so we're all on the same page, reread post #164. There are 3 quotes in that post. None of which you addressed except to vaguely assert that they are from the 16th volume of the Erlangen Edition, and the second quote you later attributed to Walter Kaufmann in The Faith of a Heretic, which has nothing to do with Luther specifically.

It wouldn't be much use trying to use the Erlangen work anyway IF available information is accurate - it hasn't been translated into English.

I can make some headway in German.

[tabibito]

References to the "richly endowed" quote quite often refer back to Kaufman's book - and if so, it very well could have been mined. Kaufman doesn't seem to think that its intent is what the atheists want to make of it.
I'm still trying to find something that gives the original German along with the translation to try for a track, but so far no success.

[Adrift]

References to the "richly endowed" quote quite often refer back to Kaufman's book - and if so, it very well could have been mined. Kaufman doesn't seem to think that its intent is what the atheists want to make of it.
I'm still trying to find something that gives the original German along with the translation to try for a track, but so far no success.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. In post #165 lilpixie asked where the quotes in post #164 came from. In post #166 you asserted that the quotes came from the Erlangen Edition of Martin Luther's Works.

Now, I don't really care what anyone thinks of the quotes, or whether or not they actually belong to Luther. In fact, I'm pretty certain they likely do go back to Luther. Like I said, he was known for saying some wacky things, and sometimes for contradicting himself. But that's not what I'm asking about. What I'm asking about is whether or not the exact quotes found in post #164 came from the Erlangen Edition as you asserted in post #166.

Kaufman's source is V 1312. I'm assuming that's volume 5 page 1,312. It looks like on page 441 of the Bibliography of the Google book you linked to, Kaufman was using Johann Georg Walch's edition of Samtliche Shriften, not the Erlangen Edition as you earlier surmised.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. In post #165 lilpixie asked where the quotes in post #164 came from. In post #166 you asserted that the quotes came from the Erlangen Edition of Martin Luther's Works.

Now, I don't really care what anyone thinks of the quotes, or whether or not they actually belong to Luther. In fact, I'm pretty certain they likely do go back to Luther. Like I said, he was known for saying some wacky things, and sometimes for contradicting himself. But that's not what I'm asking about. What I'm asking about is whether or not the exact quotes found in post #164 came from the Erlangen Edition as you asserted in post #166.

Kaufman's source is V 1312. I'm assuming that's volume 5 page 1,312. It looks like on page 441 of the Bibliography of the Google book you linked to, Kaufman was using Johann Georg Walch's edition of Samtliche Shriften, not the Erlangen Edition as you earlier surmised.

It doesn't matter to me if they go back to Luther or not (he was known to say silly things), but it is annoying and a big warning sign when somebody uses obscure and hard to find sources for their material because if you can't look up their claim; you can't dispute it or see if it is actually true or out of context (which is why I suspect online atheist soundbites often come from obscure and hard to find sources, specifically for that reason).