“I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963).
***
Tell me when you’ve read the whole thing and I’ll move onto the next.
Your source (Peter Weiner, who is a Luther-hating fanatic much like you) contains a brutal mistranslation of the German, assuming a mistranslation at all because nothing of the sort actually appears.
Here’s a proper translation: “God is very foolish [or stupidest], for the most powerful enemy Satan opposes is a sick man that is like a shaken reed. It must irk the devil terribly that he, such a great, powerful and intelligent spirit should not be able to overcome or hurt man, such a lowly and weak creature, without God’s permission. Therefore, angry Satan throws fiery darts at us, to which the remedy is the shield of faith. This certainly often has been undertaken with me.”
The only time that Luther refers to God as a ‘scoundrel’ was when he was speaking about his debates with Calvinists. I quote:
“Do Not Brood About the Mysteries Connected with Election. A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely. Staupitz said: if you want to dispute about predestination, begin with the wounds of Christ, and it will cease. But if you continue to debate about it, you will lose Christ, the Word, the sacraments, and everything. I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God. Then the laudate (praise) stops, and the blasphemate (blaspheme) begins. However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside Him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election. (W-T 2, No. 2654a - SL 22, 832, No. 75).”
So in other words, a misquote, a misplaced quote, and a lie of omission on the part of your stupid, stupid cherry-picked sources of hate. Luther is speaking of God being a ‘scoundrel’ when one abandons Scripture to follow one’s own itching ears.
Considering that your very first attack was an outright and total lie from your source, I would think that you’d be ashamed for being taken in by such propaganda.
I have read your rebuttal and have rejected it.
One down, thirty-seven to go regarding Luther’s heresies. I promise, I’ll read your other rebuttals as you post them.
People are taken in by propaganda because they want to believe it or believe that it's true.
And the Internet abounds with such, keeping James Swan busy researching and correcting, though Luther's propensity to sometimes extreme hyperbole, and too often caustic language can be a problem.