Then I would suggest that your understanding of the Renaissance and/or the Reformation is deficient. You are of course entitled to your opinions and I am certain that nothing posted on these threads will change them, but the motivations of the Reformation were far more political than religious. That is not a criticism of the piety of Protestants, only a statement of historical fact.
Peace be with you,
There is much to know of history, and I cannot claim to know it all, but you were suggesting the Reformation was a product of other considerations, which leads away from looking at the rot that was in the Roman church at the time, casting blame elsewhere.
Let us agree to what first causes actually were, then we can continue on to later ramifications, involvements, philosophical considerations and their resulting impacts upon European societies & culture.
Are you maintaining it was the Renaissance that led Luther to state his own opposition to corruptions which could be then seen in the Latin Church of that era? Or is it more like mixing in that part with all the rest of later developments, in hopes of distracting from and burying it (the rot), using guilt by association technique to impugn the Reformers, for the sake of the more generally sinful nature of mankind, which one can pretty much always find evidence for, wherever on cares to look?
That's what I have long been seeing in argument against Luther and the Reformation. Upthread, we had one of your cohorts accuse Luther of having his way with a barrel-full of nuns (as in many). Then it comes out it was he married one of them. Two years after they both had left the Latin Church. They were married... but Still damned to hell for fornication, according to one of your brethren.
I'm sorry, but in the environment here, to be snootily told that I'm simply too ignorant to understand, is a bit much. The real problem you may have with me FRiend, is that I understand much only too well!