A friend of mine had a book burning night.  There was a fire.. some beer.. and some book burnings.

The reason he burned his (certian) books was because he no longer believed in those writers.  The info was no longer believable or important to him.

I celebrated his freedom.

i think that burning books for fun can be distinguished from burning books with the intent to destroy knowledge.  In this age of mass publication and on-line text, book burning is very unlikely to be able to accomplish the former.

In another thread, Dannyboy said:

Quote

i recall our friend Paul encouraging the burning of the odd subversive book during his travels.  Do you think there might have been any wider suppression of budding religions by the newest big fish in the pond?

I am pretty certain that this is nonsense.  Dannyboy, would you care to corroborate this?

i think we've been here before.     In this case i am aware that you will be very unforgiving in the amount of interpretational latitude you allow to be applied to the text (much less than you allow in the case of the Book of Daniel prophecy, for instance), and i will admit to baiting you slightly there with my interpretation of the Book of Acts.

Paul certainly appears (to me) to speak approvingly of the massive destruction of knowledge by his recent converts at Ephesus - what would 50,000 drachmas be in modern-day US dollars i wonder?  More than a library-full of now probably lost knowledge.  i find that pretty sad, and not at all worth celebrating as Paul appears to when he says "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed".

EB has made the case that these books were pure unadulterated evil the loss of which i should not regret, but i am curious about the 'curious' arts (much as i am about 'strange fire'), and i dont see how anyone can claim to know that these destroyed books were not worth preserving.  Acts 19 contains more than a few frankly unbelievable things (conversations with evil spirits, miraculous healings, and the conversion of the entire population of Asia in a two-year period), so i will comfort myself that the 50,000 drachmas bit is probably nonsense.

Would it have made you happier if i had said that Paul "presided over" books being burned?

As for later supression of 'heretical' material, i'm thinking primarily of Arius, Priscillian and the Library of Alexandria.

Dan

i think that burning books for fun can be distinguished from burning books with the intent to destroy knowledge.  In this age of mass publication and on-line text, book burning is very unlikely to be able to accomplish the latter.
*fix'd*

^ This = 42

Is this a question for a single person to answer, really? Wouldn't it be more practical to bring the book to the attention of others who actually did know leukemia, and get an informed opinion on whether the book belonged in the research library or not, and whether or not it was "knowledge" at all? If it was in fact publicly deemed "misinformation" by people who knew the subject matter, then, well, and if it were removed with the knowledge and consent of that hospital, not only would the issue be dealt with, but everyone would know why it was dealt with. Publicly calling into question and rebuking what is put forth as "knowledge" would not be the same as attempting to suppress that which is put forth as "knowledge." In the former case, information is loudly called on its bullcrap; in the former, that which is considered bullcrap is swept under the rug in a panic, in the (usually vain) hope that no one will see it.

I think you miss what "dealt with" would entail. It would thus be a rejection and as such the books being tossed into the trash, shredder, or let's just say burned  would be the physical sign of having it "dealt with". How are you going to distinct between burning something as "dealt with" or burning something as "suppression"? I think context and an actual reading of the text that gives you the info that books were burned would be a start. What is your inclinitation  when the scope of the deed is that it's owners of their own personal property rather than setting a library aflame?

The quote I answered had no mentions of burning, shredding, or trashing, merely the placement of proposed "information" and the question of how one would react to it. 

And I think you, again, miss what "how one would react" to the proposed "information" would entail i.e. burning, shredding, or trashing once it's "dealt with".

Check the post right behind the one you quoted, sai.

Your post doesn't address the question. Your post assumes it's people setting aflame all available copies of the "information". I asked when it is in fact people only doing what they want specifically with their own property rather than any copies to the public or owned by others.

There was no "dealing with" mentioned. There was only, specifically, "taking it out" or "leaving it be."

It will still be pointed out what "taking it out" would lead to i.e. burning, trashing, shredding, etc.
 

If I see no danger in book burnings for fun, End Bringer, why would I see danger in one destroying their own property?

Because the issue in this thread is that it's being taken as 'censorship'.

And why would I care what one does with their own blasted property, anyway? It's their own blasted property, let them do as they wish.

Then we're agreed.

Is this a question for a single person to answer, really? Wouldn't it be more practical to bring the book to the attention of others who actually did know leukemia, and get an informed opinion on whether the book belonged in the research library or not, and whether or not it was "knowledge" at all? If it was in fact publicly deemed "misinformation" by people who knew the subject matter, and if it were removed with the knowledge and consent of that hospital, not only would the issue be dealt with, but everyone would know why it was dealt with.

I have no particular objection to this extension of the question.  Indeed, you are making my eventual argument.  Certain books were rejected (and occasionally destroyed) by the Christian community because those who knew Christianity best knew that these were imposters, and when they were removed, everyone knew why they were being removed.

The standard skeptical line on this is that this is proof positive that the Christian church was busy suppressing rival viewpoints to such a degree that we cannot even know what was genuinely the faith that Jesus preached.  This dovetails into claims that Paul revised that as well.  In short, the whole argument seems to be perfectly calibrated so one doesn't have to take an actual stand on any particular piece of historical evidence- ie, conforming one's belief system to the FACTS- but rather to make it possible to wave away any particular piece of evidence as just as easily tampered as not, and hence, while interesting, never binding.

Of course, on that basis we might turn to your leukemia society and come to the same sorts of conclusions.  By excluding certain things one supposes that for that reason we can never be sure we know anything about leukemia.

I am the first person to get in line to point out that experts and authorities do not get sacred leeway.  But I notice that skeptics only value experts and authorities when they are their own.  As far as Christians go, anybody who self-identifies as a Christian really is a Christian and to say otherwise is to engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Anyway, since DB is slow getting here, I'd like to point out in this relation that Arius, whom he mentioned, was allowed at the council of Nicea to make his case.  The Nicene Creed was crafted in response to Arius's assertions and then it was put up for a vote.  The creed was accepted by 298 to 2.

No one was burned at the stake in this incident.  No viewpoint was suppressed.  The 'community' who knew the subject matter best rejected Arius's view point by a wide margin.

I have trouble understanding why this and similar instances is problematic.

No, no, no, my friend.  You are changing the terms of the analogy.  I was not trying to address the issue of epistemology but rather the issue of authority.  The key question I was seeking to illustrate was that, within reason, a body of like-minded individuals have the right to set the boundaries of their position, ruling in and ruling out what belongs.

For the hyper-skeptic, the simplest rebuttal to the veracity of the Gospels (for example) is that they were written by .... *gasp* people who actually believed what they were writing and *dear gawd* embraced and later endorsed by those who believed what was written.  Then, they- can you believe it?!?!?- had the audacity to assert that (for example) the Gospel of Thomas was categorically NOT promoting ideas consistent with what had come before.

However, as was the point and purpose of the illustration, it is self-evident that in fact various groups are given leeway to define the parameters of their positions.  This courtesy is witnessed everywhere- but is not extended to Christians today or in the past.  Any body who says "I'm a Christian" by most atheistic accounts must be considered a 'Christian' even if they believe utter nonsense.  The Christians in the past who enforced the boundaries of their ideological territory are castigated as suppressors of knowledge.

Follow me?

great, hopefully Dannyboy will agree and follow too.  :)  I wrote the last mainly for him.  :)

"i am baiting you again, clearly."

Yes, and more desperately than usual. 


The author of Acts, Luke, speaks approvingly... not of the 'massive destruction of knowledge' but of books of sorcery.

"i have already made the point (helpfully corrected by the newly reincarnated Sir Somebody Solaris) that destroying a book in the age of mass publication can hardly be compared to destroying a book in the first century CE."

Said only by someone living in the age of mass publication.  Presumably, a person living in the first century AD knows better then you and I do the value of a book.  But I suppose our first century citizens should have known that 2,000 years hence they'd be churning out books by the millions and even replacing them with computers?  This whole line doesn't seem like an argument, it seems more like you're just looking for any thing to throw hoping something will stick.  That's just my take.  :)

"i'm sorry to use Nazi imagery, by the way, but it's the easiest parallel to draw.  i dont mean to imply anything other than relying on a source that approved of the destruction of certain knowledge to tell you exactly what that knowledge was is a little naive."

But the problem is that you are making assumptions in the other direction.  You want to try to concoct a Christianity that was hell bent on stifling dissent left and right thus throwing into doubt everything we know about Christianity (and if you were consistent, the entire ancient world) based on... a little passage about people who used to be sorcerers burning their own books. 

Presumably, these converted sorcerers didn't think their books had any value.  That was their own, individual, personal call.  You don't want to take their word that it was rubbish, that's fine, but to try to paint it as some sort of systematic program is simply not warranted.  In short, if that's the argument you want to make, I'm going to make you earn it with more than pot shots. 

It isn't merely an argument for the sake of argument to me.  If this is holding you back from the faith then I think it needs to be addressed and your own personal integrity will drive you to see how grounded in reality this perception of yours is.

"You suggest that it was impossible for Christians to have any power to suppress rival viewpoints until at least 315CE?"

In the systematic way implied by your argumentation?  Absolutely not.

"i dont know, are we treating this as historical again?  How should i interpret the intervention of Zeus (or whoever) in the seige of Troy, according to you?"

I don't discount the possibility that Zeus (or whoever) intervened at Troy.    But you're still baiting me but I'm not going down this road in this thread.  Haven't we enough on the table?  :)

"i am aware of that.  But from the link you provided you presumably agree with me that certain early Christians had great hostility towards the 'heretical' knowledge contained within the library, and probably had at least some responsibility for its destruction."

I'm not willing to go that far.  The purpose of the link was to show that there have been other ideas floated.  I mean, even the disparity in the dates should cause you to wonder.  When did the library burn down?  The accounts/stories/rumors are spaced out over like 800 years.  Except for knowing that it burned down I'm not sure anyone really knows the details.  I haven't studied it, but from past readings that is about where I stand on it.  If you'd like to make a federal case out of it then it would be fun to get back into the data.

"Did you ever read "Cosmos", by the way?  It seems only fair since i read that Chesterton stuff at your request."

Cosmos by who?  Sorry, I'm a lout.  I don't even remember you suggesting it.  What about Abolition of Man.  Did you read that, too?

"That's a complicated question."

Read:  If I answer this directly I may admit the man's point.

:)

"That aside, no, go ahead.  be prepared for some fairly scathing reviews in medical journals though."

So, in other words you concede the point.  That's a lot of words to say, "Yea, the medical community has the right to go after you."  :)

"For this to be even an approximate analogy i would have to allow you to assume an awful lot of knowledge which i know for a fact you do not have about the contents of the "sorcery" books in Acts."

Be careful! 

"For all my caveats about the medical science community, there are some reasonably good safeguards against such a thing happening."

More words to basically grant the point.  But watch how you segue from 'reasonably good safeguards' to 'these nasty knowledge suppressing Christians..."

"but simply noting that by selecting certain 'knowledge' as the truth (based on its congruence with previously held 'truths'),"

Whoa.  Hold the phone.  If they were merely attempting to be congruent with previously held truth then they aren't selecting anything, are they?  They are merely affirming.... 'previously held truths.'  If Christians had really believed that Jesus was God all the way back to the time of Christ they aren't 'selecting' anything.  Why should some dude get to come in and say "But I think they are all wrong, three hundred years of Christians got it all wrong" and you, Dannyboy, think he should get a fair hearing.

I mean, it just seems to me that if you're a decent fellow you'll just go out and start your own religion instead of co-opting someone else's.

How dare these people affirm what had been consistently and virtually universally believed for three centuries!

"i wonder why you do not apply the same logic with much greater force to the deliberations of the Council of Nicea."

I think it probably has something to do with the fact that I've read widely in the writings of Christians between the Council of Nicea and the writing of the books of the New Testament.  You're concerned about doctrinal 'cherry picking' but it is just hard to make that case when you're reading Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, etc, etc, and see 'mere Christianity' come out clear as day throughout.

Just to give a common example of this madness... it is widely asserted in skeptical circles and given popular currency in the Da Vinci Code that the notion of Jesus being God and God as trinitarian came about at the Council of Nicea.   But I know for a fact that Tertullian, whom I just mentioned, coined the term in early 200s, a solid 150 years before the council.  For Tertullian to coin the word the concept already had to have had currency, and there isn't a whole lot of time between the founding of Christianity and Tertullian's coining for people to be developing doctrines out of nothing and whole cloth.  Nor is there record of any of the Church fathers objecting to Tertullian using the word.  Indeed, the concept can be traced in the writings of those who preceded Tertullian.

Since I know this, I confess it chafes my hide when I hear people assert otherwise.  I mean, don't they bother to open books?  (I hear think of someone like Dan Brown, who ought to know better).

Most of the people who like to play with the whole "The 300 folks who got together in 315 to selectively cherry pick their favorite doctrines and repressed all the rest" haven't usually bothered to study the previous 250 years to see if their hypothesis stands up.