Explain to me Martin Luther

[Catholicity]

I assume you mean the Native Americans?

For starter's yes. Then of course there was the flip flopping of the Tudor Line in England (Elizabeth the I and Queen Mary and then the Catholic/Anglican/Puritan/Catholic/Anglican Oppression of the People) and of course the French problem with the Bourbons and the Hugenots and yes more opression until after the Revolution then you have a new kind of oppression and OH lets not forget Napolean......Yes the Catholics WERE SQUEAKY CLEAN!!!!

[Manwë Súlimo]

My favorite Catholic is JRR Tolkien.

Fixed your grievous error.

[One Bad Pig]

During the Age of Exploitation...err Exploration. I mean its not exactly nice to conquer a native's land then forcibly baptize them and then enslave them; in the name of God then the King.

How much of that was church policy? Wasn't that mostly driven by political considerations, with the forced baptisms more of a religious veneer?

[One Bad Pig]

Fixed your grievous error.

Much as I admire JRRT, religious writings trump fiction (no matter how well told). I do like Tolkien's fiction better.

[robrecht]

Well, aside from all my vitriol towards Martin Luther, it's clear that he really did have good intentions, which is shown in his writings, when he saw the destruction his Reformation, wielded in the hands of power hungry kings and nobles, had caused, he recanted for it. It's clear he didn't mean for any of that to happen, initially. ...

Well, I mean, he, himself, said that things were better off under the Church of Rome than the power hungry Protestant kings, so yes.

Recanted in what sense, exactly? Or do you just mean that he regretted some of the unforeseen consequences? Did he recant in the sense that he acknowledged the pope's authority or correctness or that he was not really the Antichrist? That he accepted the seven sacraments? That he regretted leaving the monastery and marrying? Can you please point to the specific text(s) of Luther that you are referring to?

[TimelessTheist]

Recanted in what sense, exactly? Or do you just mean that he regretted some of the unforeseen consequences? Did he recant in the sense that he acknowledged the pope's authority or correctness or that he was not really the Antichrist? That he accepted the seven sacraments? That he regretted leaving the monastery and marrying? Can you please point to the specific text(s) of Luther that you are referring to?

Yeah, that part. He regretted the consequences of his Reformation.

[TimelessTheist]

For starter's yes. Then of course there was the flip flopping of the Tudor Line in England (Elizabeth the I and Queen Mary and then the Catholic/Anglican/Puritan/Catholic/Anglican Oppression of the People) and of course the French problem with the Bourbons and the Hugenots and yes more opression until after the Revolution then you have a new kind of oppression and OH lets not forget Napolean......Yes the Catholics WERE SQUEAKY CLEAN!!!!

Eh, hold on there. My statement was directed at the Church as a body, not just "Catholics" in general, so I'm not exactly sure the Bourbons and Hugenots apply, as that was a war between houses.

As for Napoleon....eh, what exactly is your problem here? Yes, he was bad, but he also restored the Church hierarchy and made Catholicism the religion of France. Just because did a lot of bad things doesn't make 'everything' he did, bad.

As for the constant chaos, and executions of the opposite side that plagued England for so very long, they were a tragedy, indeed, however.....well, I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but who's fault exactly is it that England ended up like that in the first place?

[Catholicity]

OBP it was a sense of religious zealousness, but it was also that religion was highly politicized.

TT: I believe we have a "both" problem. Henry the VIIIX didn't think he should have to submit to the Church in Rome, and quite frankly for all intense and purposes under "free will" He didn't. Not to excuse what he did. However culture at the time was that He SHOULD have been given the annullment and divorce but for political reasons it didn't look good. The primary thing you are looking away from; Religion at this point was HIGHLY political. Religion and politics were completely inseperable and whatever a person did they used religion as the "good" or the "bad" to conquer and to kill. It doesn't look good for the Catholics or the political Reformation either. And there is no way to defend using the name of God to start a political agenda or to oppress people. I think it boils down to needing to acknowledge the faults of one's own church past. Trust me Luther, Calvin(nother issue altogether) Zwingli and others began splits which in many cases took on new challenges politically and certainly were wrong it a lot of ways (I can rip apart the geneva settlement without a problem and certainly some heresies I know exist) however because of it, we enjoy religious understanding we might not otherwise have.

[robrecht]

Yeah, that part. He regretted the consequences of his Reformation.

Can you please point to the specific text(s) of Luther that you are referring to?

[TimelessTheist]

OBP it was a sense of religious zealousness, but it was also that religion was highly politicized.

TT: I believe we have a "both" problem. Henry the VIIIX didn't think he should have to submit to the Church in Rome, and quite frankly for all intense and purposes under "free will" He didn't. Not to excuse what he did. However culture at the time was that He SHOULD have been given the annullment and divorce but for political reasons it didn't look good. The primary thing you are looking away from; Religion at this point was HIGHLY political. Religion and politics were completely inseperable and whatever a person did they used religion as the "good" or the "bad" to conquer and to kill. It doesn't look good for the Catholics or the political Reformation either. And there is no way to defend using the name of God to start a political agenda or to oppress people. I think it boils down to needing to acknowledge the faults of one's own church past. Trust me Luther, Calvin(nother issue altogether) Zwingli and others began splits which in many cases took on new challenges politically and certainly were wrong it a lot of ways (I can rip apart the geneva settlement without a problem and certainly some heresies I know exist) however because of it, we enjoy religious understanding we might not otherwise have.

Henry the VIIIX didn't think he should have to submit to the Church in Rome, and quite frankly for all intense and purposes under "free will" He didn't.

Eh, no, I disagree. I don't think he was justified in betraying the Church, the Pope, and his people.

He didn't. Not to excuse what he did. However culture at the time was that He SHOULD have been given the annullment and divorce but for political reasons it didn't look good.

Kind of downplaying the situation, aren't you? King Henry's wife was Catherine, and Catherine didn't want the annulment, and Catherine's nephew was holding the Pope as prisoner. If the Pope had went ahead with the annulment anyway, I doubt his captor would have taken kindly to his aunt being denied her demand to not do it.

Religion and politics were completely inseperable and whatever a person did they used religion as the "good" or the "bad" to conquer and to kill.

The only major event where the Church did that was the Crusades, and as I said before, they were a justified defense against Islamic Jihadists. If you're talking about the Kings and Queens however, well, of course a lot of them did so. Doesn't make what they did right if it was bad, or wrong if it was good.

And there is no way to defend using the name of God to start a political agenda

Depends what the agenda is. For instance, if you wanted to enact laws against abortion (Which, by the way, Reformed England was one of the first countries in Christendom to legalize abortion), I would think enacting God for that agenda would be okay.

It doesn't look good for the Catholics or the political Reformation either.

I have yet to see you prove that the Catholic Church was as deceitful or oppressive as those who propagated the Reformation.

I think it boils down to needing to acknowledge the faults of one's own church past.

I'm not saying there were no faults within the Church, ever. Heck, it has some problems right now, with some of the declarations made in Vatican 2. However, what we're talking about right now, isn't one of them.

[Catholicity]

I've made several attempts but you are completely convinced that using God as long as its the way you can justify it is okay. I promise if the Independent Fundamental Baptists or Strict Fundamental Christians (as in Bob Jones University) were to suddenly take over America and begin to dictate your religion and property rights you'd be singing a different tune.

[TimelessTheist]

I've made several attempts but you are completely convinced that using God as long as its the way you can justify it is okay. I promise if the Independent Fundamental Baptists or Strict Fundamental Christians (as in Bob Jones University) were to suddenly take over America and begin to dictate your religion and property rights you'd be singing a different tune.

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

[Catholicity]

I'm beginning to sense that you have a "my mind is made up, please don't confuse me with facts"

Also I was not putting words in your mouth I was giving you a scenario to consider. And you yourself have pointed out that you believe that using God politically is fine as long as its for the right reasons. The problem is you don't seem to understand how corrupt the human heart really is. Especially when it comes to politics.

[TimelessTheist]

I'm beginning to sense that you have a "my mind is made up, please don't confuse me with facts"

Also I was not putting words in your mouth I was giving you a scenario to consider. And you yourself have pointed out that you believe that using God politically is fine as long as its for the right reasons. The problem is you don't seem to understand how corrupt the human heart really is. Especially when it comes to politics.

Well, if they're using they're corrupt, then they're not using it for the right reasons, are they?

Also, I don't support forcing your religion on countries that don't want it under any circumstances, so your analogy does not work.

I'm beginning to sense that you have a "my mind is made up, please don't confuse me with facts"

I see that psychological projection is still the most common defense mechanism among humans.

[Catholicity]

I don't believe I can actually make any convincing arguement so before this gets too silly, I'm not going to debate any further right now. That and I have other more pressing concerns at hand.