P
- Status
G
Ginger2
Guest
I think you may have a good idea, mgrfin. Here is a site where you may read selected works from Luther
htt://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html
Start reading and when you find something you would like to discuss, we can all - who are interested - read the exact same thing you read in it’s entirety.
It’s a Lutheran site so should be acceptable to all.
Have fun!
htt://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html
Start reading and when you find something you would like to discuss, we can all - who are interested - read the exact same thing you read in it’s entirety.
It’s a Lutheran site so should be acceptable to all.
Have fun!
M
mgrfin
Guest
G
Ginger2
Guest
mgrfin,
What does “101” mean?
There are several quotes made by Catholics that can’t be credibly verified. Yet, you continue to accuse protestants of not providing sources.
You even accused me of not providing the source when I did. So I obliged you even further by posting the link.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I have been very accommodating to you and you have repeatedly refuse to supply sources for your mostly misinformed statements.
And am tired of answering your questions just to hear you say you don’t have to answer mine. You make a statements and refuse to provide any info to prove you are telling the truth and then say it is up to me to prove Luther never said it.
That logic is ridiculous. When you accuse someone, it is up to you to provide the proof.
Now you insist we provide a Protestant site. I’ve done that, and you are still not satisfied.
It was your suggestion - post #275
What does “101” mean?
There are several quotes made by Catholics that can’t be credibly verified. Yet, you continue to accuse protestants of not providing sources.
You even accused me of not providing the source when I did. So I obliged you even further by posting the link.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I have been very accommodating to you and you have repeatedly refuse to supply sources for your mostly misinformed statements.
And am tired of answering your questions just to hear you say you don’t have to answer mine. You make a statements and refuse to provide any info to prove you are telling the truth and then say it is up to me to prove Luther never said it.
That logic is ridiculous. When you accuse someone, it is up to you to provide the proof.
Now you insist we provide a Protestant site. I’ve done that, and you are still not satisfied.
It was your suggestion - post #275
W
why_me
Guest
The fact is: Martin Luther supported polygamy when it became expedient to do so. Also the original quotation that I posted was not refuted.
Of course, a person can post a quote here and a quote there. The catholics and protestants on this board do it all the time to the board mormons.
I just see the failure of lutherism in my own society. Where I am, the country would have been better off catholic and fighting the reformation than conforming to it. The luthern church has lost its way in guiding the population to live a good christian life.
Of course, a person can post a quote here and a quote there. The catholics and protestants on this board do it all the time to the board mormons.
I just see the failure of lutherism in my own society. Where I am, the country would have been better off catholic and fighting the reformation than conforming to it. The luthern church has lost its way in guiding the population to live a good christian life.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Why me,
I chose not to refute it. However, the fact remains I am taking your word for it because there is no way to verify the letter.
Apparently the only source was in a book written 100 years after Luther died.
The book may have been written in another language which means the author had to translate the letter. So we have to assume his translation was completely accurate.
Also, he was a Catholic who’s purpose in writing the book was probably to discredit Luther. So we also are forced to assume fairness in a bias situation.
And finally what language was the book written in? Do we have a translation from a translation?
I feel I have been more than charitable throughout this discourse I even gave you the benefit of the doubt before I had even seen the letter.
In contrast, I have been called a liar for quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have been accused of not providing references, when it is in fact certain Catholics who do not provide references.
I think the point of Catholics is to convince protestants that Luther was a devil. While protestants accept the fact that no human being is perfect.
Church Fathers who accused Mary of imperfections such as “vainglory” should be enough for you to acknowledge that fact.
But I guess for Catholics, mistakes and errors can only be overlooked if they like the person - all others must be damned to hell.
I chose not to refute it. However, the fact remains I am taking your word for it because there is no way to verify the letter.
Apparently the only source was in a book written 100 years after Luther died.
The book may have been written in another language which means the author had to translate the letter. So we have to assume his translation was completely accurate.
Also, he was a Catholic who’s purpose in writing the book was probably to discredit Luther. So we also are forced to assume fairness in a bias situation.
And finally what language was the book written in? Do we have a translation from a translation?
I feel I have been more than charitable throughout this discourse I even gave you the benefit of the doubt before I had even seen the letter.
In contrast, I have been called a liar for quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have been accused of not providing references, when it is in fact certain Catholics who do not provide references.
I think the point of Catholics is to convince protestants that Luther was a devil. While protestants accept the fact that no human being is perfect.
Church Fathers who accused Mary of imperfections such as “vainglory” should be enough for you to acknowledge that fact.
But I guess for Catholics, mistakes and errors can only be overlooked if they like the person - all others must be damned to hell.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Ginjger,
I see you are having a bad day.
what is why me? You use that tag in one of your posts referring to a poster by the name of “Why Me”. In the same vein ‘101’ refers to a well know poster here by the name of Protestant101.
Why Me answers your rant in the post following mine.
You constantly asked for references to quotes to the point of being downright annoying.
You can rant all you want; you are responded to whenever it is reasonable. You speak as though your Protestant approach is the only answer to religious questions. You seem to forget that Luther and Melancthon did their best to divide the one true Church, founded by Jesus Christ. Amazingly, Luther thought that it was all over when he was finished, that he had reformed the Catholic Church.
We don’t love Luther. I don’t know who does. Protestants on this site say they don’t favor him, including yourself. I don’t like him particularly, because of the evil he has done. You don’t dislke Mary but find somebody who claimed Mary had some doubt. You don’t seem to accept that the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness was not declared 1500 years later. If you understand the Fathers, you will know that they were not in total agreement about everything. That is the nature of the theological process.
We would like Luther to be a saint, sorry. We like our Fathers and Doctors of the Church to be saints, as many of them were. We would like to believe that they had insights into the life of Christ that we need and hope they impart. We certainly don’t believe Luther had insight in Christian truth.
You only show your anti-Catholic bent by attacking the Fathers on the sinless Virgin Mary. We don’t like it, sorry.
What a mistake Luther made. He was just opening the gates of the flood of the Revolt he started. We now have a Protestant mess that no Luther, no Calvin, no Pope can repair. Jesus himself would say this is not what he came to do.
Calm down, and stop attacking us because you harbor disgust for Catholics. We are not impressed. We face that hatred all the time because we hold the key to the truth, and others outside just don’t like us for that.
peace
G
Ginger2
Guest
mgr,
You said "101, right after addressing me. Your post was not clear that you were changing who you were talking to.
Don’t be so snotty about it. You made the same mistake when I responded to someone else’s quote (post #202) AND you were not even addressed in that post (#209)
I responded to you with politeness. (post #215) And when you demanded I apologize because you were confused. I did so promptly. (#218)
Your response to my apology was super snotty (post #220)
FURTHERMORE, I have not attacked your “saints”. I merely demonstrated that no one is perfect, and asked why there is leeway given to some and not to others.
What I can’t understand is why anyone would get upset with me for saying the saints who claim Mary sinned were wrong. Your Saints are the ones who defame Mary - not I. I did not agree with their remarks. Instead I pointed out that they were wrong to say such things. Don’t you agree they were wrong?
Surely a good Catholic like you does not agree that Mary suffered “vainglory” or sinned in even the slightest way.
So why defend the saints who claim such vulgarity and curse me when I say they were wrong?
You said "101, right after addressing me. Your post was not clear that you were changing who you were talking to.
Don’t be so snotty about it. You made the same mistake when I responded to someone else’s quote (post #202) AND you were not even addressed in that post (#209)
I responded to you with politeness. (post #215) And when you demanded I apologize because you were confused. I did so promptly. (#218)
Your response to my apology was super snotty (post #220)
FURTHERMORE, I have not attacked your “saints”. I merely demonstrated that no one is perfect, and asked why there is leeway given to some and not to others.
What I can’t understand is why anyone would get upset with me for saying the saints who claim Mary sinned were wrong. Your Saints are the ones who defame Mary - not I. I did not agree with their remarks. Instead I pointed out that they were wrong to say such things. Don’t you agree they were wrong?
Surely a good Catholic like you does not agree that Mary suffered “vainglory” or sinned in even the slightest way.
So why defend the saints who claim such vulgarity and curse me when I say they were wrong?
M
mgrfin
Guest
My saints did not defame Mary. I don’t curse anyone. Who ever told you I was a good Catholic. Apparently I am super-snotty. Whatever.
Z
Zooey
Guest
That site is hysterical!! Did you all look around at the nonsense??
Here, try this: reformation.org/confederate-states.html
and: reformation.org/magellan-meets-giants.html
And if that isn’t enough, how about reformation.org/saint-anne-boleyn.html ???
Yes, not only
“Saint Martin Luther”, but
uch: “Saint Anne Boleyn”!!!General Robert E Lee ::bigyikes: one of the angels who fell with Satan!
The Earth does
** not** revolve!Prophecy preacher Hal Lindsay and his daughters (http://bestsmileys.com/lol/5.gif) are all Jesuits!!
…I gotta stop…I’m getting a crick in my side from all this…:whacky:
G
Ginger2
Guest
I am so glad everyone, both Protestant and Catholic, realize that Website is NOT a credible source of info on Martin Luther.
Hopefully Catholics will stop quoting from it to discredit Luther. (ie “One of the great lies of the Reformation was that Luther found the Bible hidden away in his Monastery.” - post # 248)
Maybe now Catholics will use factual information from credible sources. And provide references with those quotes without having to be asked a dozen times.
Thank you Protestant101 for helping to expose the fake quotes and accusations about Luther. (ie "I have noticed on this forum that whenever Catholics make such a claim(248); they almost never give verifiable references of any kind. - post #267 Your post prompted the another poster to reveal his faulty source.
Hopefully Catholics will stop quoting from it to discredit Luther. (ie “One of the great lies of the Reformation was that Luther found the Bible hidden away in his Monastery.” - post # 248)
Maybe now Catholics will use factual information from credible sources. And provide references with those quotes without having to be asked a dozen times.
Thank you Protestant101 for helping to expose the fake quotes and accusations about Luther. (ie "I have noticed on this forum that whenever Catholics make such a claim(248); they almost never give verifiable references of any kind. - post #267 Your post prompted the another poster to reveal his faulty source.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Ginger, we are not afraid of the truth. Luther was who he was. In readings from the site you provided, it is clear that Luther set himself up as pope. All the Lutherans got was one pope in place of Another.
For 2,000 years we have never been afraid of the truth. It never does well to falsify history or truth. We use what references were available. And although you claim you are no lover of Martin Luther, you defend him to the bitter end.
We will continue to quote Catholic Enclyclopedia, or the Enclycopedia Britannica, or whatever other Enclyclopedia is available. And we will use what Protestant and what Catholic sites provide information.
Rightly were you called “Thomisina”. The only proofs you accept is that Protestantism in its 13,000 forms is more acceptable than the one true Faith, in his Catholic Church…
Protestant101 has never proved anything on this site as long as I have been here. And neither have you, Ginger. And, I am prepared to accept your apology for accusing me of cursing any one or anything on this site.
peace
G
Ginger2
Guest
mgrfin,
You made false claims about Luther’s history. When Protestant101 pointed out that you don’t provide references to support your claims, **you **provided the site that everyone finds hilariously ridiculous.
As I have said over and over again, I am pressing for truth and accuracy.
If you really believe all the things you say about Luther, why do you need to present false information to prove it to others? If you are correct, the truth be enough.
When you distort the facts and claim falsehoods you destroy your own credibility.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” applies to everyone.
You made false claims about Luther’s history. When Protestant101 pointed out that you don’t provide references to support your claims, **you **provided the site that everyone finds hilariously ridiculous.
As I have said over and over again, I am pressing for truth and accuracy.
If you really believe all the things you say about Luther, why do you need to present false information to prove it to others? If you are correct, the truth be enough.
When you distort the facts and claim falsehoods you destroy your own credibility.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” applies to everyone.
M
mgrfin
Guest
The distortion is on your side. You say I curse you - not true. Now you are implying that I am offending against another of God’s commandments, bearing false witness. You have a very loose tongue.
I am the first to admit to the hilarity of that pro-Protestant site. But that is the kind of falsity we are used to. We seem to have to spend our time, finding references to fight off such absurdities.
My creditibilty is based on the truth of the Roman Catholic Church. You don’t have anything on us. If you were pressing for the truth, as you say, you would see that Jesus Christ founded only one Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
Provide your own claims to the truth of your ‘church’. You can’t and won’t, so it is clear you are not pressing for truth and accuracy. The truth is enough, but you won’t accept the truth without proofs, like the proofs the Pharisees demanded of Christ.
I still await your apology for accusing me of cursing you. I guess, seeing your works, I am not going to get it.
peace
G
Ginger2
Guest
You are the one who posted quote(s) from the spurious source to defend your position on Luther.
Therefore, “the distortion is on your side” not mine.
You know very well that you unjustly called me a liar. You have twisted my words over and over again. You have falsely accused me of being guilty of the wrong others have done to you.
But now, you once again are insisting that I apologize to you. Last time I apologized you spat on the apology.
For what?
Because I used the word “curse”? Perhaps it was not the most fitting word to use, but not at all inappropriate. Look it up in the dictionary. It has a broader simply a swear word.
Then look through your rude and nasty posts directed at me. I am tired of it.
My statements are backed by your Catholic Church. If they are false, then blame your Church not me. I use Catholic sources so that they cannot be disputed. The words of the fathers are found in RC publications. I gave references so you could see for yourself.
Therefore, “the distortion is on your side” not mine.
You know very well that you unjustly called me a liar. You have twisted my words over and over again. You have falsely accused me of being guilty of the wrong others have done to you.
But now, you once again are insisting that I apologize to you. Last time I apologized you spat on the apology.
For what?
Because I used the word “curse”? Perhaps it was not the most fitting word to use, but not at all inappropriate. Look it up in the dictionary. It has a broader simply a swear word.Then look through your rude and nasty posts directed at me. I am tired of it.
My statements are backed by your Catholic Church. If they are false, then blame your Church not me. I use Catholic sources so that they cannot be disputed. The words of the fathers are found in RC publications. I gave references so you could see for yourself.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Cursing to me is wishing someone evil. I certainly never did that. That is what your loose tongue accused me of.
The Catholic Church is the one true Church, founded by Jesus Christ. There is nothing untrue about it, for it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, whom the Father sent to us at Pentecost.
I accept apologies in the spirit in which they are given. I certainly don’t spit on them. Your imagery is certainly distorted.
You are experiencing paranoia. No one is out to get you, and your rudeness is evident by taking me for granted, and calling me 'honey", which I find rude and insulting.
I quoted from an obviously spurious site. I did it to get your attention. It is similar to the anit-catholic sites so common on the Internet.
Maybe, some day the truth will get through to you.
peace
A
Angainor
Guest
It is more fair to say that Luther didn’t oppose polygamy in that instance.
He was not wrong. He had no standing in God’s revealed truth by which to oppose, as a general principle, all polygamy. He is not pope. He cannot declare a ban on something without standing.
There is no biblical ban on polygamy except in the special case of bishops.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Just because you can’t find a biblical ban on polygamy means nothing to us. Christ’s institution of marriage intended it to be between one man and one woman.
As for the ban on bishops, that had nothing to do with polygamy, but with re-marriage aftter the first marriage. A man who was a widower could not remarry and hope to become a bishop.
The woman at the well had more than one husband, meaning successively, not comcomitantly.
Polygamy was so infamous Paul didn’t list it. If you can accept the theological prohibition on adultery, fornication, masturbation, sodomy, how can you then accept polygamy?
Marriage is a contract between two people. In that contract you give exclusive rights to your spouse for sexual relations. Polygamy would offend that particular issue of monogamy and justice.
Protestants land on their own horns. If it’s not in the Bible, it aint wrong. How about logic? How about reason? How about the legal rights of the married person to and from his beloved?
peace
A
Angainor
Guest
What!? Yea, right. “husband of one wife” has nothing to do with polygamy.
By the way a widower who marries has one wife.For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Romans 7:2
I am not advocating breaking any contracts or breaking any laws against polygamy.
What about it?
G
Ginger2
Guest
mgrfin,
one definition for curse is, “an evil that has been invoked upon one”
Ya done me wrong, mgrfin. Ya done me wrong
…when you called me a liar.
…when you said “Luther should have condemned polygamy. Therefore he supported it.” but refused to apply this same standard to Augustine. Then accuse me saying “Ginger is trying to dirty his name because Luther’s is so smudged.” (I gave the reference: Saint Augustine On the Good of Marriage Chapter 15)
…when you set the criteria and then refuse to follow it yourself. I have shown you a quote where Luther condemns the practice of having more than one wife. You cannot show me a quote where Augustine denounces polygamy. It was you who set the standard - not me.
…when you continue to post spurious quotes “But Luther, he hated the Jews, and would love for them all to be exterminated.” and refuse to provide the source. Where is your source for this accusation? The 9th commandment say “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
Or does your Bible read “thou shalt not bear false witness unless you don’t like the person”/
I could go on and on, but what is the point? You don’t seem to care whether what you say is true or not.
one definition for curse is, “an evil that has been invoked upon one”
Ya done me wrong, mgrfin. Ya done me wrong
…when you called me a liar.
…when you said “Luther should have condemned polygamy. Therefore he supported it.” but refused to apply this same standard to Augustine. Then accuse me saying “Ginger is trying to dirty his name because Luther’s is so smudged.” (I gave the reference: Saint Augustine On the Good of Marriage Chapter 15)
…when you set the criteria and then refuse to follow it yourself. I have shown you a quote where Luther condemns the practice of having more than one wife. You cannot show me a quote where Augustine denounces polygamy. It was you who set the standard - not me.
…when you continue to post spurious quotes “But Luther, he hated the Jews, and would love for them all to be exterminated.” and refuse to provide the source. Where is your source for this accusation? The 9th commandment say “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
Or does your Bible read “thou shalt not bear false witness unless you don’t like the person”/
I could go on and on, but what is the point? You don’t seem to care whether what you say is true or not.
- Status