Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
LOL.
They do look like they could be useful during coming festivities.
“Read commentaries of serous authors who disagree with you on this”
Kosta, you sell yourself short if you think that I don’t respect you enough to have researched all sides of an issue when we correspond. I apologize if I have given you that impression. If you notice in the discussion I have referred to different views and have addressed some of them in my argument.
Here is a portion of one of the articles I found in my research,
“Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that nothing is greater than God, including evil.Evil results from the free will of God’s creation, and the evil one, Satan, was once good.His name was Lucifer, or light-bearer, and the Orthodox tradition likens him to the morning star.But he also opposed his own will to God’s will, and found himself in darkness.Orthodoxy teaches that Satan is not as powerful as God.But Satan’s particular talent is falsehood, so he is able to convince people that he is as powerful as God.Eastern Orthodoxy is very optimistic in its outlook, teaching that the triumph of good over evil on the Last Day is a certainty.”
We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds is greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
True revolutionaries and men of God are not merely reflections of their times, but men who break away from the constraints and biases of their times and lead on to a new and better world. Luther, as illustrated by his books on Jews, was a highly flawed individual who was used by the German princes to enable their break with the Holy Roman Empire and facilitate and justify their seizing of the assets of the Church and wealthy Jews. He was instrumental for their violent put down of peasant revolts. He was rewarded handsomely for these sins in this life. Do you really believe that he was rewarded in the next?.
He later attributed his decision to an event: on 2 July 1505, he was on horseback during a thunderstorm and a lightning bolt struck near him as he was returning to university after a trip home. Later telling his father he was terrified of death and divine judgment, he cried out, "Help! Saint Anna, I will become a monk!"[17] He came to view his cry for help as a vow he could never break. He left law school, sold his books, and entered a closed Augustinian friary in Erfurt on 17 July 1505.[18] One friend blamed the decision on Luther's sadness over the deaths of two friends. Luther himself seemed saddened by the move. Those who attended a farewell supper walked him to the door of the Black Cloister. "This day you see me, and then, not ever again," he said.[16] His father was furious over what he saw as a waste of Luther's education.Luther did believe that Reason could not lead men to God, and his 95 theses are also written more as one inquiring rather than on proscribing doctrine
Much has been written about Luther, sadly not much of it, pro or con, has been objective. I have read much of it and tried to strip away the hyperbole and look upon Luther simply as a man in the context of his times.
He did recognize legitimate flaws within the institution of the Church, but he was not the first and was certainly not alone. Every one of his contentions were being hotly debated within the Church and many had been for a long time.
Why did he choose to take his fight public? The timing of his posting of his 95 Theses and the events leading up to and immediately following that event are very dubious. When viewed through the lens of secular a historian Luther looks like a pawn and a paid agent of the princes, corruptible because he was overly petulant, ambitious, greedy, and proud.
kosta50 wrote:
“Why don’t you just ask me? For starters, tell me what is God. You are delving into the Bible, and that is one of the last chapters to be addressed.”
My dear kosta50, why is it one of the last chapters to be addressed? You seem to think that there is only one way to go about this ... your way. If you want to set aside the Bible and just exchange ideas about God, as best He/She/It/They can be understood from nature, for that is all we would be doing, then all religions are equal and we are all blind squirrels rooting around for what we hope will turn out to be a nut. What we will end up with is a religion of many gods, one set for this group and another for that, a god for the tastes and predilections of this individual and another for that one’s. The world has already been there and done that.
Or you can go the impersonal, big-bang-capable force out there somewhere that seems to be the hope of the modern scientifically minded group. The advantage in this belief is that this god doesn’t demand much ... on the other hand he/she/it/they doesn’t give much either. He/she/it/they is as dark, cold, and impersonal as outer space itself. We are there right now. I don’t see much benefit to humanity at present, and the returns are rapidly diminishing.
Or you can appoint man his own god, which has been tried at various times. However, man is the most implacably cruel god of all, even to the point of being utterly predictable in his unpredictability. One would think that after the bloody and horrible 20th century, when we had the purest and more thorough set of experiments with this god, that we would abandon him altogether, but it seems that we are always primed for an encore. Such is the human condition.
Or one can delve into the one concept of God that offers both an explanation for evil and a solution. So, there you are. There is my definition of the what of God for you. God is the Explainer of evil and its Resolution.
Give them time. Soon they'll discover some "ancient" manuscript written on the back of an Arby's menu which clarifies all that.
Please excuse the rest of us who trust the Inspired word of God before we heed the ludicrous contentions of sex-starved priests who fantasize about heavenly virgins (like our Mohammadan mad bombers also do)
Would they were all "sex-starved." It's the sated ones you really have to look out for.
Weak.
But it's not surprising RC apologists are now giving a pass to the koran. They're just following their false bishop of Rome and his ever-loving smooch of their screed which calls for the death of all Christians and Jews.
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
If you ever get around to defending your faith with Scripture as Christians are called to do, be sure to let us know.
Natural Law wrote:
“Much has been written about Luther, sadly not much of it, pro or con, has been objective. I have read much of it and tried to strip away the hyperbole and look upon Luther simply as a man in the context of his times.”
Dear NL, you say that you have read much of what has been written about Luther. That is fine. But have you actually read Luther? I am not looking for a fight. I am looking for reasonability. It does no good to point out the flaws and sins of men - there is a target rich environment with the long line of popes - because there will be no end to it. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. What is important is the substance. I am interested in discussing substance ... once that is bypassed, I tend to lose interest and drift away.
NL also wrote:
“He did recognize legitimate flaws within the institution of the Church, but he was not the first and was certainly not alone. Every one of his contentions were being hotly debated within the Church and many had been for a long time.”
In this you are quite correct. He was neither the first, nor was he alone.
Then NL asked:
“Why did he choose to take his fight public?”
First of all, I am not sure that taking “his fight public” was all of his own doing or even his intention. The posting of theses was a typical university exercise, and the door of the castle church was the bulletin board. Posting academic debate questions for the faculty and students of the theological school of the university was regular practice. The other two graduate departments, law and medicine, regularly did the same thing. That the 95 Theses “went viral,” to use a recent expression, has more to do with the chord they struck rather than the striker. Again, it is a question of substance, not motive.
If we insist on arguing motive (though judgment of such is reserved to God) and/or degree of sinfulness we are ultimately choosing to engage in that which will never benefit anyone, least of all ourselves. All our motives are suspect. All of our holiness, whether of thought, word or deed, is as filthy rags.
Not in my estimation. When you have to engage in a debate with yourself whether he did the right things for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons to judge him and the consequences of his actions he has already failed the "raised up" test.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.