After reading what I'll send you to, it is yourself who should not be quoting Martin Luther, at least not in second-hand fashion through persons such as O/Hare, who clearly has an agenda to demonize Luther.
When, or if you do care to quote Luther, see to it that the quotes are linked to direct sources. Second-hand citations from the likes of Father O’Hare are unreliable, non-direct, and clearly biased translation source for quotes.
For some of the worst alleged quotes, among the worst O'Hare haphazardly documented, when he documented his sources at all(!)-- Luther is very often attributed to having said this-or-that according to somebody's notes rather than Luther's own writings, ---all of which was written originally in German, which then at the hands of Roman Catholics seeking to tear him down, have long been subject to selectively biased cherry-picking in order to make it all look worse than it was ---including when Luther was possibly at his worst. That makes those particular [alleged] citations into "hearsay" witness testimony of the worst second-hand, and third-hand kind. O'Hare had lots of those, and is indeed a primary source among present-day RC apologists who seek to demonize Luther, rather than understand what was more actually being said, and why.
The man was under a great deal of pressure. Is it any surprise that he would have experienced difficulties? Roman Catholicism, more acutely in Luther's era than our own, was chock-full of theological stumbling blocks which were not Christ (the true cornerstone) but were instead inventions of mere men who mistook their own imaginings to be equal to the Word of God.
Dealing with RC apologists (and their twisted-up multi-layered errors, and lies, coupled with personal attacks) as long as I have, I could only imagine the strain Luther was under to, theologically speaking, get it right --in a time when there was a great deal of theological outlook and practice that itself would have been viewed as heretical, had the original apostles and their first few generations of successors witnessed the theological developments. Myself and others here on this forum have been addressing those [ahem, cough-cough] developments for YEARS, by now.
Are you interested in the truth about Luther, ebbtide? Or, are you more interested in repeating twisted-up accusations, and poorly-sourced quotes? Answer that, and then we could proceed.
Two things for you to consider:
1. It was not I who brought up Luther on this thread. It was your “dragon” buddy who, out of the blue, quoted the arch-hereitc Luther in an attack on the papacy in his post #8.
2. I never quoted Fr. Patrick O’Hare; I quoted your hero’s words directly with a source: De Servo Arbitrio.
So good luck refuting your very own arch-heretic, Martin Luther. You guys have your work cut out for you.
Who’s in you saddle? God or Satan?
No kidding?
Man must persuade himself that he has nothing to do with the law and that no sins can condemn him; nay, let him, so to say, boast of his sinfulness and thus take the weapon out of the devil’s hand. When the devil rushes at you and tries to drown you in the flood and the deluge of your sins … say to him, ‘Why do you wish to make a saint of me, why do you expect to find justice in me, who has nothing but sins and most grievous ones?’ (Wittenb. V. 281 B.)
Guess who rode in Luther's saddle until his death. I'll give you a hint; It wasn't God.