The Fallen Star from heaven - Martin Luther

[Ani_Ibi]

I would say that was very likely; however, that shouldn’t necessarily rule his viewpoints out. (…even though I disagree with many of this beliefs)

But it explains why Luther refused to work things out with the Church.

It explains the violent methodologies he used to spread his ideas.

 

[christcnection1]

But it explains why Luther refused to work things out with the Church.

It explains the violent methodologies he used to spread his ideas.

Maybe yes… Maybe no…

I think we can only speculate on this one. Again, it’s likely that many of the Saints had psychological problems, but they reacted differently in the midst of their circumstances.

Had Martin Luther’s circumstances been different, there could have been a very different outcome. Remember, there were many evils going on at his time. He was justified for some of his reactions; the Church needed reformation (…but from within).

Had the Catholic Church been equipped with a thorough Biblical response as we do today, with less corruption, I doubt the Reformation would have gained the wings it did at the time.

(regardless, this is way off topic)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

christcnection1:

Maybe yes… Maybe no…

Which is it?

christcnection1:

I think we can only speculate on this one.

If you want to speculate, then speculate.

christcnection1:

Again, it’s likely that many of the Saints had psychological problems, but they reacted differently in the midst of their circumstances.

Very vague. Unless you specify, then it is a faulty analogy.

christcnection1:

Had Martin Luther’s circumstances been different, there could have been a very different outcome.

This begs the question that he had choices.

christcnection1:

Remember, there were many evils going on at his time. He was justified for some of his reactions; the Church needed reformation (…but from within).

That does not excuse the evils that he chose.

christcnection1:

Had the Catholic Church been equipped with a thorough Biblical response as we do today, with less corruption, I doubt the Reformation would have gained the wings it did at the time.

It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with rising nationalism, greed, and a shortage of educated clergy resulting from widespread death from the Plague. These are some of the major factors.

 

[christcnection1]

Which is it?

Based on what I’ve researched on Martin Luther, I would say partly yes. I think the powers that surrounded him had a lot to do with his decisions, not just his psychological problems.

If you want to speculate, then speculate.

I just did, thank you.

Very vague. Unless you specify, then it is a faulty analogy.

That’s your opinion.

I wasn’t comparing Martin Luther to the Saints. My only point is that people with emotional or psychological issues often deal with their circumstances differently. I don’t think this is unreasonable.

This begs the question that he had choices.

No doubt.

That does not excuse the evils that he chose.

No question about it.

It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with rising nationalism, greed, and a shortage of educated clergy resulting from widespread death from the Plague. These are some of the major factors.

I agree with you. You are actually in line with my point.

To broaden my point, I meant that had the Church been equipped intellectually, morally, and spiritually, She would have been in a much stronger position to stifle any impeding force. It’s fair to say that the Church was vulnerable on many fronts during that time period.

Unfortunately, we’ll never know. Either way, our Lord allowed it to happen.

I get this sense you’re looking to disagree and/or have an argument with someone. If I’m wrong, I sincerely apologize. Perhaps we are just on “a different page.”

God bless,
JB

 

[colliric]

There’s a difference between “having” the keys
(Rev 1:18 … I… have the keys of death and of hell.)

and in being given the keys by someone else (eg Jesus).
(Rev 9:1 …and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.)

The more traditional interpretation seems better to me than Sungenis’s.

Nita

yep…

I still think martin Luther had far too many warped dangerous ideas about the Bible.

I am a little disappointed protestants still follow many of his doctrines and beliefs like “sola scriptura” and “Sola fide”.

He deliberately damaged his own bible translation in more than one way, putting his very soul at great risk. He added “alone” to romans and cut out the Deuterocanon, he also wanted to get rid of Apocalypse and James.

 

[Clovis]

Samuel Beckett’s Endgame (A Tragicomedy in one act)

**Hamm: Why don’t you kill me?

Clov: I don’t know the combination to the cup board.**

 

[Ani_Ibi]

christcnection1:

Based on what I’ve researched on Martin Luther, I would say partly yes. I think the powers that surrounded him had a lot to do with his decisions, not just his psychological problems.

So Luther had no choices? He was forced to blow a gasket every time someone disagreed with him? He was forced to throw his lot in with opportunistic nationalists? When the Church made overtures to rectify his grievances, he was forced to remain outside the Church? He was forced to use the crudest kind of propaganda and defamation to spread his message? He was forced to encourage forcible conversions to his new religion? Land grabs? Executions? Luther was forced to take matters into his own hands early on when his Church community tried to give him direction and comfort? And none of the harm which ensued was Luther’s fault?
Ani Ibi:

Very vague. Unless you specify, then it is a faulty analogy.

christcnection1:

That’s your opinion.

It is a faulty analogy. Logic is not relative.

christcnection1:

I wasn’t comparing Martin Luther to the Saints. My only point is that people with emotional or psychological issues often deal with their circumstances differently. I don’t think this is unreasonable.

No that is not unreasonable. But did Luther deal with his issues responsibly?

christcnection1:

To broaden my point, I meant that had the Church been equipped intellectually, morally, and spiritually, She would have been in a much stronger position to stifle any impeding force. It’s fair to say that the Church was vulnerable on many fronts during that time period. Unfortunately, we’ll never know. Either way, our Lord allowed it to happen.

Forever shifting responsibility. This time it is the Lord’s fault for not stopping the Reformation. The Reformers are quick to take responsibility for all the benefits they think accrued from the Reformation and slow to take responsibility for the great harm which accrued – even to the extent of diverting attention from it.

Let’s remember that the lion’s share of what happened during the Reformation came from secular forces, armed secular forces. How was the Church supposed to stop that?

christcnection1:

I get this sense you’re looking to disagree and/or have an argument with someone.

You get the ‘sense’? Is that some sort of gnostic gift of telepathy? Because someone disagrees then they are ‘looking to disagree’? That is really disrespectful, don’t you think?

christcnection1:

If I’m wrong, I sincerely apologize.

You’re wrong. Apology accepted. Thank you.

 

[christcnection1]

So Luther had no choices? Of course he did. I agree with you again, as I did before. He was forced to blow a gasket every time someone disagreed with him? He was forced to throw his lot in with opportunistic nationalists? When the Church made overtures to rectify his grievances, he was forced to remain outside the Church? He was forced to use the crudest kind of propaganda and defamation to spread his message? He was forced to encourage forcible conversions to his new religion? Land grabs? Executions? Luther was forced to take matters into his own hands early on when his Church community tried to give him direction and comfort? And none of the harm which ensued was Luther’s fault?

Of course it was his fault. I agree with you again, as I did before.

It is a faulty analogy. Logic is not relative.
No analogy was trying to be made. The point could be applied to any person with psychological problems.

“But just like in criminal law a person who commits a felony may have mitigating circumstances that lesson the offense (such as mental illness), the Church also teaches that mitigating circumstances can lesson one’s culpability for a mortal sin.”

Expert Answer Forum – Saint-Mike.org

In the case of Saints, sometimes their psychological problems fostered a holy zeal. To some extent, the opposite happened with Luther, which led him further into an abyss.

No that is not unreasonable. But did Luther deal with his issues responsibly?

No, he was irresponible. I’ve always held that view.

Forever shifting responsibility. This time it is the Lord’s fault for not stopping the Reformation. The Reformers are quick to take responsibility for all the benefits they think accrued from the Reformation and slow to take responsibility for the great harm which accrued – even to the extent of diverting attention from it.

I’m not blaming God. Haha! God allows all sorts of things that are not His fault.

Let’s remember that the lion’s share of what happened during the Reformation came from secular forces, armed secular forces. How was the Church supposed to stop that?

I was looking at it from a proactive position, not a reactive position. Again, I agree with this point.

You get the ‘sense’? Is that some sort of gnostic gift of telepathy? huh? Because someone disagrees then they are ‘looking to disagree’? not my point. That is really disrespectful, don’t you think? Trying to stir up a fight for no reason is wrong; however, I never accused you of that, though it was a concern. It still appears you are picking a fight with someone who essentially agrees with you. Generally speaking, asking people their perspective is better than assuming you know what it is.

You’re wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time! Apology accepted. Thank you. Your welcome. Unfortunately, communicating on CAF leaves room for misunderstandings./COLOR]

Luther was at fault. He probably had psychological issues that contributed to his decisions. I cannot see one area where we fundamentally disagree.

Let’s get to the bottom of this. What is your foundation point to this whole exchange? (We can then see if we agree or disagree.)

God bless,
JB