The repetition of lies

[Anoetos]

In this thread George Blaisdell repeates the lie that Luther removed James from the Bible.

Without singling Arsenios out, I have a question, or a series of questions:

What does the repetition of lies do to the credibility of the person who repeats them? Can there be any such thing as the innocent repetition of a lie? If a person comes across a piece of information prejudicial to the opinion of a person with whom he is in dialogue is it not the better part of valor, not to mention charity, to verify it? Is not the lie compounded when it is repeated without substantiation?

Does this kind of thing have any place in civilized discussion much less debate?

Speaking for myself, when I find this sort of thing it takes a bit to work me up. There is nothing like Odium Theologicum to really perpetuate errors and lies about persons and institutions, so, my first reaction is to try to educate the person who has repeated the lie, but what I often find is that though the person who has 'erred', or been careless can be reformed in his opinion, the lie itself continues. There is no way, really to get to the root.

So, my second reaction is to shun such people as malicious polemicists more interested in hurting than in bringing light. But this doesn't feel right.

Help!

[smaller]

There is no way, really to get to the root.
But this doesn't feel right.

Help!

The Word tells us all who the real root of these perceived scriptural problems are, but of course these roots are much more clever in this age than the children of light, and your flesh is subject to same roots as Arsenios.

This place is filled daily with the arguments of the slaves of darkness and proponents of eternal human torture. The stink of that false judgment is nearly an unbearable reek.

What is it you expect when that understanding prevails in your heart AND HIS?

and you still think your enemies are people like Arsenios? Both of you may delight to see the other fry alive forever for your perceived faults of the other man's positions.

It's a sickness. If you sought to love one another and threw in your unsaved neighbors for good measure you'd be far better off in heart.

The Truth, The Word, The Spirit and LOVE are ALL THE SAME.

[Amazing Rando]

In this thread George Blaisdell repeates the lie that Luther removed James from the Bible.

Without singling Arsenios out, I have a question, or a series of questions:

What does the repetition of lies do to the credibility of the person who repeats them? Can there be any such thing as the innocent repetition of a lie? If a person comes across a piece of information prejudicial to the opinion of a person with whom he is in dialogue is it not the better part of valor, not to mention charity, to verify it? Is not the lie compounded when it is repeated without substantiation?

Does this kind of thing have any place in civilized discussion much less debate?

Speaking for myself, when I find this sort of thing it takes a bit to work me up. There is nothing like Odium Theologicum to really perpetuate errors and lies about persons and institutions, so, my first reaction is to try to educate the person who has repeated the lie, but what I often find is that though the person who has 'erred', or been careless can be reformed in his opinion, the lie itself continues. There is no way, really to get to the root.

So, my second reaction is to shun such people as malicious polemicists more interested in hurting than in bringing light. But this doesn't feel right.

Help!

Perhaps it might be a good idea to assume the best about George's intentions and assume he meant that Luther wanted to take James out of the Bible?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Perhaps it might be a good idea to assume the best about George's intentions and assume he meant that Luther wanted to take James out of the Bible?

Or that he was just ignorant of the fact that Arsenios was full of it when he made that claim? I wouldn't put people who have been deceived by a lie in the same boat as those who knowingly perpetuated the lie to begin with.

[spiritmech]

So who is the originator of this lie?
sm

[spiritmech]

I mean, I heard it even in non-denominational Protestant circles.
sm

[technomage]

Perhaps it might be a good idea to assume the best about George's intentions and assume he meant that Luther wanted to take James out of the Bible?

Anoetos, I ... would have grave difficulties accusing George Blaidsel of "repeating lies" with any malicious intent. He has always struck me as one of the least malicious persons on this forum.

It is true that Martin Luther "argued that this epistle was too defective to be part of the canonical New Testament." (Cite.) He did the same with Revelation. And it is true that he called EpJames "an epistle of straw." Indeed, if I remember correctly, was not the Epistle of James in a section separate from the New Testament?

Anoetos, after re-reading Blaidsel's post, I sincerely believe that he was not intending to "repeat a lie," but to give his best recollection of Luther's opinion of James. True, it was not entirely an accurate recollection--a condition we all fall prey to from time to time. But I am persuaded that no dishonesty was intended.

[Amazing Rando]

Or that he was just ignorant of the fact that Arsenios was full of it when he made that claim? I wouldn't put people who have been deceived by a lie in the same boat as those who knowingly perpetuated the lie to begin with.

He's a good person and an upstanding Christian from what I've observed, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's far more educated than you or I, and likely knows what he's talking about, even if he didn't communicate this very clearly.

[FlimFlamboyant]

He's a good person and an upstanding Christian from what I've observed, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Certainly that's the best course of action until the guy actually has a chance to explain himself.

My understanding has always been that Luther considered leaving it out, but ended up including it anyway.

[Anoetos]

I think George's choice of words makes his intent perfectly clear. He was more interested in defaming Luther than in telling the truth, and when such is your intent, any lie will do.

[Anoetos]

I consider myself a fairly astute discerner of motivation. I rarely err in judgement in this regard and George's intent was pretty clear.

I am not perfect, certainly, but even leaving aside any putative demonizing intent, what kind of person just repeats an error without verifying it (other than a New York Times editor, that is?).

[Amazing Rando]

Certainly that's the best course of action until the guy actually has a chance to explain himself.

My understanding has always been that Luther considered leaving it out, but ended up including it anyway.

It's not like Luther actually had the choice of rewriting or recompiling the canon over 1000 years after it had been settled! That would have made him an arch-heretic.

[spiritmech]

It's not like Luther actually had the choice of rewriting or recompiling the canon over 1000 years after it had been settled! That would have made him an arch-heretic.

Dang, either the satire is biting, or my KJV contains Tobit.
sm

[Amazing Rando]

Dang, either the satire is biting, or my KJV contains Tobit.
sm

point taken.

[Anoetos]

What's interesting to me is that in the late middle ages and the reformation era, they had nothing like our current post-fundamentalist attitude toward the Bible.

Of course they believed it to be (uniquely) the Word of God and they handled it with reverence but it was common practice among scholars to give opinion as to which books they felt were, if it can be said, somehow 'more inspired' than others.

For a long time the "Song of Solomon" was considered very important. In every age the Church has considered the four Gospels to be the centerpiece of Scripture. The post-reformation era has tended to focus on the Pauline epistles.

Luther's opinion on James should be seen in this light and he should not be portrayed as some latter-day Marcion seeking to bowdlerize Holy Writ.

Again, for the record, Luther not only didn't remove James from the canon, he never had any intention of doing so and in his translation of the Bible put it exactly where we find it in our Bibles today, among the "catholic epistles".

It is perhaps a matter of context. Luther says of James, "I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books". How easy would it be to snip this quote before the words "to be numbered among the true chief books" and so boedlerizing Luther, make him say something he never intended?

And yet, this is exactly what has happened.

Dead people are so easy to misrepresent.