View Single Post


May 26th, 2013, 02:09
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Neither Calvin, nor Luther were dumb; they were both highly intelligent though I disagree with much they wrote. Have you ever read and analysed Luther's 95 theses?
I have. I was extremely disappointed. I had learned in high-school history class That Luther was a "supreme rebel" who "nailed scandalous defiance" into the cathedral doors and "bravely challenged the papacy".

Just so happens that the 95 thesis are innocent questionings about the abuses of Johann Tetzel and Luther doesn't challenge the papacy at all. He also didn't "nail them" in any Cathedral door, he just posted them at some university bulletin board. I mean just look at this:

Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys
This is just a few, I could go on. The guy sure changed his mind once some war hungry princes bailed him out of jail and offered him money and power. This is a far cry from believing the Pope to be the antichrist.

As for lack of intelligence, I will quote the man himself:

Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads.
Our bodies are always exposed to Satan. The maladies I suffer are not natural, but Devil's spells.
Some [demons] are also in the thick black clouds, which cause hail, lightning and thunder, and poison the air, the pastures and grounds.
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight.
The winds are nothing else but good or bad spirits. Hark! how the Devil is puffing and blowing
Sorry, but I prefer to read Saint Thomas Aquinas.

[QUOTE=Corwin;1061199786]Could you please outline to me YOUR understanding of Original Sin./QUOTE]

I don't like what you are doing. You don't reply to my arguments(I assume because you have no reply to them and concede they are truthfull). You just ask me to keep on writing.

To answer your question, Original Sin is basically a prehistorical event which caused man to have a fallen nature, be subject to evil and need redemption. Further description could take pages. Chesterton was brilliant though, when he said this: "Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

Genesis is a nice myth and certainly expresses the truth, but to imagine that there was actually a "first couple", talking snakes and a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is beyond the confines of a good intelligence. Hence educated people of the 3rd and 4th century accepted it was an allegorical text. Too bad two ignoramuses living well into the renaissance turned on it.
FretRider is offline




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 226