• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
Gatorubet;1432573; said:
He was the driving intellectual force behind the Reformation. I think that the Lollards in England don't get their just due in keeping the Reformation pot simmering, but again that is another day. The "nut job" comment only had to do with the anti-Jewish quotes, and how he reconciled his beliefs when it would logically follow that that all of Joseph and Mary's relatives were perfidious scummy Jews...

Not my best or clearest post Grad, and certainly the nut job comment way too flip a comment for such an important personage from a Protestant standpoint, but I was rushing to finish the post and I was getting sidetracked by being more and more pissed as I read the quotes.

buckeyegrad;1432661; said:
Fair enough Gator, sorry for the overreaction on my part. That had more to do with this not being the first time I have had the Luther hated Jews comment stated as a response to my agreement with his "Reason is a Whore" quote than anything you really said.

Oh, and I agree with your Lollards comment about them not getting their due. Wycliffe certainly was a major influence on Huss, whose writings influenced Luther.

.

hmm... i think the primary catalyst of the Reformation was not any one person or group of people, but rather was the fact that average people could actually read the Bible for the first time in a thousand years or so...

but then again, i'm a "heretic" and historicist. :p
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;1442845; said:
... i think the primary catalyst of the Reformation was not any one person or group of people, but rather was the fact that average people could actually read the Bible for the first time in a thousand years or so...
Thought-provoking. So you would seem to put Gutenberg ahead of Luther as a catalyst for the Protestant movement?
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1443229; said:
Thought-provoking. So you would seem to put Gutenberg ahead of Luther as a catalyst for the Protestant movement?
That is a fascinating question-one that would be perfect for a final exam in AP European History.
In a general sense, I would put Gutenberg ahead of Luther-Gutenberg created the catalyst, and Luther seized the moment, protesting against indulgences, the Medici popes,etc.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1432831; said:
What? Just because he had issues with Christians adopting Jewish practices? Why would that [censored] you off? ::biggrin:

Well, as to Luther being a major inciter of pogroms, virtually all European pogroms after the 15th centrury took place in Catholic/Eastern Orthodox realms. The Jews had basically been chased out of Western Europe by the end of the 15th Century. I'm not justifying anything Luther wrote, I'm just saying that when my 6xGreat Grandads in the Ukraine/Russia did something horrific to a shetl, they probably weren't doing it based on the writings of Luther.
 
Upvote 0
stxbuck;1444166; said:
... when my 6xGreat Grandads in the Ukraine/Russia did something horrific to a shetl, they probably weren't doing it based on the writings of Luther.
1. It's spelled "shtetl." Surprised your spell-check didn't catch that. :tongue2:

2. Your comment about what motivation anti-Semites had in the middle ages is apt; probably, Luther was reflecting common bigotries of his time rather than inventing any new ones. We need to remember as Christians that all of us are sinners -- even those who were instrumental in effecting important and valuable changes in the Church.
 
Upvote 0
"Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave."
G. I. Gurdjieff

Aren't we all seeking self knowledge? Religion can be a door we can pass through to self knowledge. But, it can also be just another trap. I see it as just another tool to be used on the way toward discovery of who we really are. And finding ourselves, we will need no religion, no philosophy, nothing else. We will realize our common humanity.
Free beer and nachos for all! :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
A thread in the poli forum reminded me of this one, so I brought that thought here. I've found myself fascinated with the concept of religion in recent years and have spent more time reading about them and studying them than I did when I was a practicing Catholic years ago. What that has done is convince me that religion is a man-made concept, full of holes, inconsistencies and falsehoods that could never derive from a divine, supernatural being. So how has it remained popular for thousands of years? The empty promise of paradise at the end of the rainbow.

There are 22 known religions in the world with 500 thousand or more practitioners. At best one religion is correct, unless you're way out there and think there are multiple "gods" fighting over our little speck in the galaxy. Most likely, every one of them is superstitious nonsense and yet it is a multi-billion dollar industry, all because people are terrified of their own mortality and will believe just about anything to be at peace with it.

It would be hilarious if millions of people hadn't been slaughtered in the name of it over the years, continuing to this day and into the future. Unfortunately, it's a plague of superstitious nonsense that makes otherwise rational, intelligent people do the same silly things people did thousands of years ago when they needed a way to explain the world around them. We now know that many of those "gods" were just natural phenomena, courtesy of modern science. And yet, religion survives because paradise in eternity is just too hard to pass up and parents pass on these traditions to children at very young ages.

I was baptized so young I don't even remember it. I completed two other sacraments of the church by the age of 10. I was just doing what I was told. After all, the other kids were doing it, too. If I had fathered children in my 20s I probably would've raised them the same way, passing on the tradition of religion for another generation without ever really thinking about it. You're not supposed to think about it. I remember asking questions about Mary - my dad had become a baptist preacher, which was a lot different than going to catholic mass I'm here to tell you - who is not held in such high regard outside catholicism. No one could ever really give me an answer. If they did, they pointed to their bible - the catholic bible, I guess the apostles wrote multiple variations of "the word of god", go figure - because that was all they knew. I doubt they had really ever read the book. Unfortunately, I did, and a lot of it sounds like the ramblings of prehistoric men on hallucinagenic drugs than any all-knowing, benevolent god in the sky. And yet, it survives in the 21st century.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top