Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
Well, that's sure interesting to know cause most of your fellow Catholics think he was and castigate him for *breaking* his vows of celibacy.
Now it appears that all that frothing at the mouth over that issue is for naught.
You are so right. The catholics killed people for simply having the Bible. What were they so afraid of? People really had to fight to have their own copies. I have never understood that. Catholics never gave people anything.
Wrong, as it is you who first introduce Luther with "a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion," which is what i responded to in 5681 by merely saying "You keep trying the anti-Semite card only to be shown how much popes were like Rome in this attitude, to which they added actions. Do you want to see it again?"
I thus said nothing about Luther not being antiSemitic, and the only reference to him after that is the quote by Ratzinger to do with the contextual mess leading up to the Reformation, which related to the progressive deformation of the church in response to your assertion that the world must have been effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years if the church was so deformed.
And which was the topic in which you resorted to trying to discredit by invoking Luther's words against the Jews, as if he was some maverick in this, ignoring similar animus Rome evidenced.
Which is typical for RCs, just as they imagine Luther was some maverick and did not have scholarly and historical RC company in judging apocryphal books as not being Scripture, whom they charge left them out of his Bible.
You keep trying the anti-Semite card only to be shown how much popes were like Rome in this attitude, to which they added actions. Do you want to see it again?
I agreed to your invitation to debate Luther's antiSemitism.
You immediately blamed the Jews and the Catholics for Luther's antisemitism and I will continue to respond as I get bandwidth and time opportunities.
Meaning affirmation of his bitterness ,
but the fact that this was provoked, yet that this bitterness and its expression was contrary to saving faith as Luther had himself defined it,
and arguing that the iniquities of a leader does not necessarily impugn all the beliefs of that church,
and listing some of Rome's anti-Jewish words and actions, since you never indict her in your rabid anti-Protestantism, somehow translates a defense of Luther's inquiry or even render into Luther being blameless?
Does Catholic testimony to the iniquities of the Jews help understand the ill treatment by Rome of them, and defend it? No, but as with different kinds of crimes, it defends against a greater charge such as unprovoked cold blooded murder, versus that which was the result of provocation and passion.
But a lynch will have none of this.
Try to stay out of jury service. Your rabid response makes it obvious your conclusion is determined by your bias and animus.
How do you get away with this ? Oh, I know.
I wrote "You introduced Luther in post 5681 with respect to arguing he was not antiSemitic." You chose to introduce his name in your post, ostensibly to defend him, so he is your client now, so to speak.
I thus said nothing about Luther not being antiSemitic, and the only reference to him after that is the quote by Ratzinger to do with the contextual mess leading up to the Reformation, which related to the progressive deformation of the church in response to your assertion that the world must have been effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years if the church was so deformed.
False, based on your own evidence in post 5681 where you tried to shield Luther from what you tried to diminish as the "anti-Semite card" which is evidently all it is to you, by your own words, by your own admission. And you had the audacity to ask me "Do you want to see it again ?" Go for it.
No, I think he had it most of the time, had an opportunity to obey the second great commandment, and decided in his heart it did not apply to the Jews. So he hated them, all of them, to the end of his vulgar, bitter, twisted life. If he was inexcusable, why offer excuses for him ? I've already postulated my theory.
Do you think Luther even taught such a faith as salvific, and know that passionate Luther did not repent? "For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present.." [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]
I think he excluded the Jews from humanity, so to speak, which the Nazis took from him to the next logical level. The Moslems do so as well, and above you blame the Jews for causing Luther to hate them. As if it was their fault Luther chose evil, and others make this same argument with respect to the Nazis and Moslems. It is a classic antiSemitic argument to blame the Jews for their own persecution at the hands of the Gentiles. Luther and the Nazis perfected it.
AF: False
It appears you are correct. Sorry about that. Thanks for catching that.
Peace,
SR
By keeping the people ignorant, it was easier to keep them under their power.
Yes when said leader founded it; yes, else you would condemn him and not count him as a founder, but he is the founder so you are stuck with him;yes and they can either be in a state of purgatory or eternal judgment and it changes no catholic doctrine; no, I think some Evangelicals will support the State of Israel to the last drop of Jewish blood, but not their own with some few exceptions ..., significant numbers of younger Evangelicals do not share their parents' support of Israel, and already oppose Israel. The Catholic Church has diplomatic relations with Israel and is friendlier to the Jewish people than any other church, faith group, sect, or cult I can think of.
Just what is your problem that you seem to inevitably resort to the "Luther was an anti-Semite" screed to deal with the Reformation. Are you acting out of being a victim of anti-antisemitism that prevents you from dealing with this issue objectively and in context?
I view the Reformation built on this notorious antiSemite to be an abomination. I base it on Messiah's second commandment, parable of the sheep and goats, condemnation of the doctrine of Baalam, and so much more.
Do you wish to defend Sola Ecclesia as meaning men can require physical extermination of people even such as me as well as manifest hate of the Jewish people and work against them and end up in heaven without repentance?
Sola Ecclesia is not a Catholic doctrine; it is a Protestant ascription/assignment to Catholics, what you call a straw man. I defend the judgment of all nations, separating them into sheep and goats, based on what they did with respect to the least of Messiah's brethren.
I agree. If the people did not have their own copy of the Bible, they would be forced to listen to the Catholics without being able to see for themselves if what they were being told was Biblical or just made up tradition. When I was learning about this, I was doing genealogy research on my late husband’s ancestors back in the 1990’s. I had never really thought about it too much until then. I am learning a lot more about them from these threads.
Me too, and I am an ex catholic myself. I was always angry, as Metmom pointed out once before, because I thought so called Protestants were able to get away with things I could not get away with, like I had to go to mass, when I would rather watch a football game. I had to embarrass myself by going to confession to a priest, and they didn't. After those guys with the Navigatirs, helped lead me to the REAL Jesus, not the Jesus of different religions out there, I dumped all this ritualistic stuff. Do you think I made the right decision MamaB?
:-)
Of course. Jesus is the answer. The only answer. I have friends who belong to certain churches. They have long hair, can not wear pants, etc. I attended some of those churches as a kid. But, back in the good ole days, we had to wear dresses, skirts and blouses to school even when I was in college. The only disagreement I ever had with a teacher was with my senior year English teacher. She told me girls should wear the same type of clothes to college football games. I disagreed very strongly. Who wants to wear heels to games after walking “miles” from the car? After seeing what some wear these days, I often think there should be some kind of dress code. : )
And herein we see how the first two obeyed Messiah and kept His second great commandment, in the book called Leviticus in the chapter named nineteen by a Catholic and the verses called seventeen and eighteen by another Catholic turned Protestant: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
That is only allowed of a Ted Kennedy or a Hugo Chavez , etc. As if they needed to as a RC.
When you first referred to the Navigators, I thought that you were referring to a group of your military buddies that you respected because of their performance in the military. I then looked up the Navigators on Google and found that they are a group of people, from about 1933 who have decided that they know more about Jesus than does either the Catholic church or any of the many Christian Protestant denominations.
I'm not certain why groups like that spring up out of the woodwork, but apparently they do and basically one is no better that the other. I cannot imagine leaving any established Christian church and relying on a store front, "Johnny Come Lately" ministry for the salvation of my soul.....they may be good, but their extraordinarily short history leaves a lot to be desired.
You may feel very comfortable there, and more power to you for it, but as you mature, you need to re-evaluate what you are giving up in comparison to what you are getting. 2,000 years of Christian history and teaching in exchange for the opinions of a group from Colorado Springs with no history whatsoever seems like a stretch to me.....Eternity is a very long time to gamble on a group of nice people who have been dissident Christians for 60-70 years.....
It is actually a useful distinction about any text. There is the original, — whether known or not and then there are copies, some imprecise. If we were to discuss, for example, Uncle Tom’s Cabin we would have to do the same work: cuth through typos to get to the original and then reason about the original. Obviously, in the case of a document whose most recent addition was written about 2000 years ago, the task is harder. I don’t know what is it here to not understand.
No, the Catholic Church never altered the original Bible. It brought it to the masses in forms she best could. These forms are somewhat fluid. The Bible isn’t.
Sure it included it: it was in the Septuagint, which was the de-facto canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church, at least since St. Paul wrote "all the scripture thou knowest since infancy is inspired by God" (quote my memory, I am sure you recognize).
is there really a time consideration in Heaven???
wasn't there something about a day and a thousand years and eternity and no consideration of time and.....whatever, YOU KNOW THE REST!!
Just keep up that illusion of yours...I think that I'll stick with what most Christians on Earth know is the truth.
Year after year, people come out of wherever and decide to advance new and sometimes bizarre theories of how salvation works. They try to deny the apparent and documented....they reinterpret teachings and situations to better serve the views that they espouse. I guess that everyone is free to do whatever they wish, and many on this thread have decided that they can do it themselves....O.K. for them, more power to them, but I don't have enough guts to denounce thousands of years of Christian teachings and go off on my own trying to reinvent Christianity....
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.