Dialogue and Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hilbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Iā€™m nervous to ask lest it sound devious, but isnā€™t there a rather fuzzy line between a really severe philosophical error and a mental illness?

I ask the question because Iā€™ve long pondered the interesting continuum among believers between the error of ā€œCheap Graceā€ on one end and the error of ā€œScrupulosityā€ on the other end and the theological influences that seem to correspond with those at each end. For purposes of forum rules is it across the line to notice and speculate the way in which ā€œSola Fideā€ might be precisely the sort of theological invention that someone who suffered from scrupulosity might create because of his own particular situation? Or does that constitute a defamatory accusation of mental illness? Naturally, Iā€™ll abide by the decision.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Or else he was consulting the Shakespearean Insulter.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough the creator of the series, Richard Curtis, was an expert on Shakespeare and British history. Thatā€™s how he was able to twist it in such a bizarre way.
Youā€™d never see an American attempt at it, we worship our Founders too much.
šŸ˜ƒ

Blackadder insult:
To a prostitute: ā€œIf I wanted a lecture on the rights of man, Iā€™d gone to bed with Martin Luther!ā€
šŸ˜ƒ
 
spina1953 said:
I have to say that I did go to that site and while it is some ways funny, it makes me wonder how he could have been able to be a reformist.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m not 100% sure, but I actually think that might have been just how people wrote back then. I once read something by St. Thomas More that was pretty salty. Like, so salty I would probably get suspended for posting it here.

Seems like maybe harsh language wasnā€™t quite as taboo then as it is now. Not saying it was right, just I donā€™t think we can necessarily judge Luther by those insults.
 
Robyn_p said:
Iā€™m not 100% sure, but I actually think that might have been just how people wrote back then. I once read something by St. Thomas More that was pretty salty. Like, so salty I would probably get suspended for posting it here.

Seems like maybe harsh language wasnā€™t quite as taboo then as it is now. Not saying it was right, just I donā€™t think we can necessarily judge Luther by those insults.
Click to expand...
Hi Robyn: You maybe right about it might just the way they talked back then or maybe it was just that Luther could be very crude in his speech. I suppose even saints like St. Thomas More could speak the same type of crude language. yet, even in our modern day and age we have people with a very good education who can cuss better than a sailor. I agree what someone like Luther could very well be suspended if he used that type of language that he used in his time.

For reasons we will never know Luther used language that most disrespectful to those who opposed him as well as to the Pope and the Church and I rather doubt that in his time people talked that way or wrote that way unless they had it in for someone and then it could ended up with off with their heads.
 
Hi Robyn: I just had another thought and that if anyone spoke as Luther did in our day and age to someone how do you think they would take it? betting that it would be fisticuffs and if someone wrote as Luther did in our day and age to important people bet they would get the axe.
 
spina1953 said:
Hi Robyn: You maybe right about it might just the way they talked back then or maybe it was just that Luther could be very crude in his speech. I suppose even saints like St. Thomas More could speak the same type of crude language. yet, even in our modern day and age we have people with a very good education who can cuss better than a sailor. I agree what someone like Luther could very well be suspended if he used that type of language that he used in his time.

For reasons we will never know Luther used language that most disrespectful to those who opposed him as well as to the Pope and the Church and I rather doubt that in his time people talked that way or wrote that way unless they had it in for someone and then it could ended up with off with their heads.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It was probably a combination of both the surrounding culture and his anti-Catholicism that caused him to talk like that. Like I said, not excusing it, just think itā€™s helpful to understand the times that someone lived in though.
spina1953 said:
Hi Robyn: I just had another thought and that if anyone spoke as Luther did in our day and age to someone how do you think they would take it? betting that it would be fisticuffs and if someone wrote as Luther did in our day and age to important people bet they would get the axe.
Click to expand...
Right, thatā€™s what Iā€™m saying. Nowadays what Luther said would be scandalous and shocking, but back then it probably wasnā€™t. Weā€™re a lot more sensitive and politically correct now then people were in the sixteenth century. šŸ˜ƒ
 
Son_of_Niall said:
You must be Irish, not many people would know the meaning of my username.
šŸ˜‰
Click to expand...
A few Welsh Quaker ancestors are the closest I come, so, no Irish in me. I guessed at your name when I first saw it, but then last week I heard a fascinating public radio program about DNA testing and the numerous possible male descendants of Genghis Khan. While reading more on that, I came across Niall of the Nine Hostages, the Irish High King, and his possible descendants.
 
Robyn_p said:
Yeah. It was probably a combination of both the surrounding culture and his anti-Catholicism that caused him to talk like that. Like I said, not excusing it, just think itā€™s helpful to understand the times that someone lived in though.

Right, thatā€™s what Iā€™m saying. Nowadays what Luther said would be scandalous and shocking, but back then it probably wasnā€™t. Weā€™re a lot more sensitive and politically correct now then people were in the sixteenth century. šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
HI Robyn: I get what you are saying. However, I wonder at that type of speech in those times when it seems to me if someone said those things to the king as Luther did to the Pope I thing it would have been off with his head. Iā€™m with you that I am not excusing what he did, just wonder how he got by talking like that till he died of natural causes.
 
manualman said:
Iā€™m nervous to ask lest it sound devious, but isnā€™t there a rather fuzzy line between a really severe philosophical error and a mental illness?

I ask the question because Iā€™ve long pondered the interesting continuum among believers between the error of ā€œCheap Graceā€ on one end and the error of ā€œScrupulosityā€ on the other end and the theological influences that seem to correspond with those at each end. For purposes of forum rules is it across the line to notice and speculate the way in which ā€œSola Fideā€ might be precisely the sort of theological invention that someone who suffered from scrupulosity might create because of his own particular situation? Or does that constitute a defamatory accusation of mental illness? Naturally, Iā€™ll abide by the decision.
Click to expand...
I think a number of people have openly speculated about Martin Luther and scrupulosity as well as anger. But labeling him as a foaming at the mouth lunatic I think is what Eric was talking about.
 
spina1953 said:
HI Robyn: I get what you are saying. However, I wonder at that type of speech in those times when it seems to me if someone said those things to the king as Luther did to the Pope I thing it would have been off with his head. Iā€™m with you that I am not excusing what he did, just wonder how he got by talking like that till he died of natural causes.
Click to expand...
Luther apparently said much the same sort of things to/of King Henry, in his reply to the DEFENSE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS, MARTIN LUTHER AGAINST HENRY, KING OF ENGLAND.

More made reply for Henry, in his RESPONSE TO LUTHER. Iā€™ve not read either work, but they are apparently equally salty.

Henry was limited to that sort of give and take, in that sort of language, since he couldnā€™t get his hands on Luther.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Luther apparently said much the same sort of things to/of King Henry, in his reply to the DEFENSE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS, MARTIN LUTHER AGAINST HENRY, KING OF ENGLAND.

More made reply for Henry, in his RESPONSE TO LUTHER. Iā€™ve not read either work, but they are apparently equally salty.

Henry was limited to that sort of give and take, in that sort of language, since he couldnā€™t get his hands on Luther.

GKC
Click to expand...
Hi GKC: You are correct. But Luther was in Germany and King henry was in England where he could not get at him.
 
GKC said:
Luther apparently said much the same sort of things to/of King Henry, in his reply to the DEFENSE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS, MARTIN LUTHER AGAINST HENRY, KING OF ENGLAND.

More made reply for Henry, in his RESPONSE TO LUTHER. Iā€™ve not read either work, but they are apparently equally salty.

Henry was limited to that sort of give and take, in that sort of language, since he couldnā€™t get his hands on Luther.

GKC
Click to expand...
I think that was the letter of More I read. And yeah, it was pretty harsh.

But hey, he ended up a saint, so I figure thereā€™s still hope for me yet. šŸ˜‰
 
Peter_J said:
Two? Really? Iā€™d think heā€™d make it to a hundred. (Well more or less. Maybe four or five short of that.)
Click to expand...
Itā€™s fun to speculate to have a foul-mouthr Luther amongst our midst - but I agree that he would last a bit longer than one post.

For all his faultā€™s, the man wasnā€™t vapid and would have adjusted his tone for the audience - as he did when debating Church powers when summoned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top