• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Diego's All-Time Lutheran Rumble Thread

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
39
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
I see. Now you’re resorting to puerile one-liners to avoid addressing the argument at hand.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Iconodule said:
I see. Now you’re resorting to puerile one-liners to avoid addressing the argument at hand.
Actually, not at all. The one-liner was in response to the juvenile non-argument presented.
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
762
Reaction score
71
Points
28
Faith
Catholic
Diego said:
So far, all your responses are proving is that you cannot win a debate. The fact that I probably DO know the OT, the NT, and Church History as well or better than you do infuriates you. Those who start storefront churches generally neither know, nor care about, Church History. Their knowledge of the OT and the NT we would both agree is defective, and when put to the test, cannot hold up under rigorous analysis. The Lutheran understanding of Scripture and Church History, on the other hand, has held up for 502 years (almost). Martin Luther had no intention of starting a separate Church. If the Papacy (which was and is one of the horns of Anti-Christ, Islam being the other) had listened to him, all of this could have been settled within Church structures.

Now admittedly, once Luther's very limited reform was rejected, that opened the gates to all kinds of crap. Those who were waiting in the wings to DESTROY the Church were given a hearing, and you end up with Calvinism, Zwinglianism,and every other awful thing one can think of.

Remember, the Papacy is Irreformata. It cannot be reformed in its present state. It is rather like the situation under Gorbachev in Russia. He was, and still is, a very good man. But the Soviet Government was irredeemably evil, and could not be reformed. In spite of the very many holy men that have occupied the Papal Chair, there have been equally as many evil men in the office. That is because the Papacy is irredeemably evil as it is currently comprised.

Luther knew what he was doing. As long as a Church does not stray from the Confessions, all is well. Dropping them, well, that is another story, of course.

I would recommend that before criticising me, you take a moment to look in the mirror. According the West, Orthodoxy is in rebellion against the properly established Papal structures. You say they are in rebellion against the Oecumene (sp?). Lutherans say you BOTH have your issues, although the Romanists have a few more issues than Orthodoxy, we shall grant. I personally say nothing. I let the Confessions speak for me.
Ok what is the debate? I want to see how many rabbit holes you try to open up to see if you can get people to play chase. First you said you were here for "conversation" with people who do not agree with you. Now you are boasting about winning debates. Ok, well let's see what the debate actually is you're winning that no one can engage with you in. Go.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
noahzarc1 said:
Diego said:
So far, all your responses are proving is that you cannot win a debate. The fact that I probably DO know the OT, the NT, and Church History as well or better than you do infuriates you. Those who start storefront churches generally neither know, nor care about, Church History. Their knowledge of the OT and the NT we would both agree is defective, and when put to the test, cannot hold up under rigorous analysis. The Lutheran understanding of Scripture and Church History, on the other hand, has held up for 502 years (almost). Martin Luther had no intention of starting a separate Church. If the Papacy (which was and is one of the horns of Anti-Christ, Islam being the other) had listened to him, all of this could have been settled within Church structures.

Now admittedly, once Luther's very limited reform was rejected, that opened the gates to all kinds of crap. Those who were waiting in the wings to DESTROY the Church were given a hearing, and you end up with Calvinism, Zwinglianism,and every other awful thing one can think of.

Remember, the Papacy is Irreformata. It cannot be reformed in its present state. It is rather like the situation under Gorbachev in Russia. He was, and still is, a very good man. But the Soviet Government was irredeemably evil, and could not be reformed. In spite of the very many holy men that have occupied the Papal Chair, there have been equally as many evil men in the office. That is because the Papacy is irredeemably evil as it is currently comprised.

Luther knew what he was doing. As long as a Church does not stray from the Confessions, all is well. Dropping them, well, that is another story, of course.

I would recommend that before criticising me, you take a moment to look in the mirror. According the West, Orthodoxy is in rebellion against the properly established Papal structures. You say they are in rebellion against the Oecumene (sp?). Lutherans say you BOTH have your issues, although the Romanists have a few more issues than Orthodoxy, we shall grant. I personally say nothing. I let the Confessions speak for me.
Ok what is the debate? I want to see how many rabbit holes you try to open up to see if you can get people to play chase. But let's see what the debate actually is. Go.
I think I have already indicated, in MANY posts, what my points of debate are. I am HARDLY going to summarise the content of multiple threads, in all parts of OCNet, here. I would recommend you go and investigate the various thread in which I have taken part.
 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
21,477
Reaction score
983
Points
113
Age
160
Location
Wandering Fool
Faith
Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
Jurisdiction
Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
I am not a Communist, though I once was. I grew up. I have never been a hippie. I simply believe in being civil, and almost always am, until someone becomes UNcivil with me. Then, I admit, I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason.
Similar to an unhinged child.
Who is the more unhinged? The one who responds in somewhat justifiable anger, or the one who initiates the problem, knowing what the results will be?
The one that says, "I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason."

That's psychotic.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Diego, you do realize that many on this board are seminary educated.  Others are actual priests.  Your assumption that you know more than they, seems rather egotistical.

Besides, simply regurgitating the Scriptures is useless.  It is Pharisaical.

We must not simply read the Scriptures, we need to LIVE as Christ directed.  We are not just to sit and read and repeat... we are to repeat with our actions.

We are to take the lives of the saints as examples to strengthen our own resolve to live, to work, to serve others, and thereby, serve God.

...otherwise, it is all meaningless.

Weren't we arguing about the use of the Rosary on this thread once upon a time?
Liza, I may not be seminary educated, but I do have two BAs, an MA, and I have read Scripture more than once. I would wager that my education in these matters is as high or higher than most here. And I have actually NOT quoted Scripture chapter and obverse at all, although others have done so with me. Who is the more Pharisaical?
Every post of your breathes Moabitish pride
ICONODULE, saying something like that just indicates how immature, and unable to discuss rationally matters of interest, you are. The Moabites were mostly punished for rejoicing in the overthrow and exile of the Jews, as I recall. They WERE prideful, yes. But that was not their primary problem. If you are going to accuse me of suffering from pride (which accusation only points out how prideful YOU are), you might do better to accuse me of Pharasaical pride (although I have already proven that I am less Pharisaical than others who have made just that accusation against me). I don't like using Scripture as a weapon, but I shall do it if I have to in order to make a point. I actually do NOT like making someone look foolish. But you are making yourself look foolish, so it's kind of hard to avoid it at this point.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
I am not a Communist, though I once was. I grew up. I have never been a hippie. I simply believe in being civil, and almost always am, until someone becomes UNcivil with me. Then, I admit, I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason.
Similar to an unhinged child.
Who is the more unhinged? The one who responds in somewhat justifiable anger, or the one who initiates the problem, knowing what the results will be?
The one that says, "I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason."

That's psychotic.
It's not psychotic at all. It is merely a turn of phrase. It does not imply anything dangerous, and you know that. Your attempt to make appear that it does is simply a sign of your inability to have an adult discussion.
 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
21,477
Reaction score
983
Points
113
Age
160
Location
Wandering Fool
Faith
Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
Jurisdiction
Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
I am not a Communist, though I once was. I grew up. I have never been a hippie. I simply believe in being civil, and almost always am, until someone becomes UNcivil with me. Then, I admit, I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason.
Similar to an unhinged child.
Who is the more unhinged? The one who responds in somewhat justifiable anger, or the one who initiates the problem, knowing what the results will be?
The one that says, "I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason."

That's psychotic.
It's not psychotic at all. It is merely a turn of phrase. It does not imply anything dangerous, and you know that. Your attempt to make appear that it does is simply a sign of your inability to have an adult discussion.
Uh-huh.  Psychotic and immature would be more specific.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
39
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Diego said:
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Diego, you do realize that many on this board are seminary educated.  Others are actual priests.  Your assumption that you know more than they, seems rather egotistical.

Besides, simply regurgitating the Scriptures is useless.  It is Pharisaical.

We must not simply read the Scriptures, we need to LIVE as Christ directed.  We are not just to sit and read and repeat... we are to repeat with our actions.

We are to take the lives of the saints as examples to strengthen our own resolve to live, to work, to serve others, and thereby, serve God.

...otherwise, it is all meaningless.

Weren't we arguing about the use of the Rosary on this thread once upon a time?
Liza, I may not be seminary educated, but I do have two BAs, an MA, and I have read Scripture more than once. I would wager that my education in these matters is as high or higher than most here. And I have actually NOT quoted Scripture chapter and obverse at all, although others have done so with me. Who is the more Pharisaical?
Every post of your breathes Moabitish pride
ICONODULE, saying something like that just indicates how immature, and unable to discuss rationally matters of interest, you are. The Moabites were mostly punished for rejoicing in the overthrow and exile of the Jews, as I recall. They WERE prideful, yes. But that was not their primary problem. If you are going to accuse me of suffering from pride (which accusation only points out how prideful YOU are), you might do better to accuse me of Pharasaical pride (although I have already proven that I am less Pharisaical than others who have made just that accusation against me). I don't like using Scripture as a weapon, but I shall do it if I have to in order to make a point. I actually do NOT like making someone look foolish. But you are making yourself look foolish, so it's kind of hard to avoid it at this point.
You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
I am not a Communist, though I once was. I grew up. I have never been a hippie. I simply believe in being civil, and almost always am, until someone becomes UNcivil with me. Then, I admit, I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason.
Similar to an unhinged child.
Who is the more unhinged? The one who responds in somewhat justifiable anger, or the one who initiates the problem, knowing what the results will be?
The one that says, "I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason."

That's psychotic.
It's not psychotic at all. It is merely a turn of phrase. It does not imply anything dangerous, and you know that. Your attempt to make appear that it does is simply a sign of your inability to have an adult discussion.
Uh-huh.  Psychotic and immature would be more specific.
Again: Your inability to have an adult conversation should not be blamed on me.

Iconodule said:
Diego said:
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Diego, you do realize that many on this board are seminary educated.  Others are actual priests.  Your assumption that you know more than they, seems rather egotistical.

Besides, simply regurgitating the Scriptures is useless.  It is Pharisaical.

We must not simply read the Scriptures, we need to LIVE as Christ directed.  We are not just to sit and read and repeat... we are to repeat with our actions.

We are to take the lives of the saints as examples to strengthen our own resolve to live, to work, to serve others, and thereby, serve God.

...otherwise, it is all meaningless.

Weren't we arguing about the use of the Rosary on this thread once upon a time?
Liza, I may not be seminary educated, but I do have two BAs, an MA, and I have read Scripture more than once. I would wager that my education in these matters is as high or higher than most here. And I have actually NOT quoted Scripture chapter and obverse at all, although others have done so with me. Who is the more Pharisaical?
Every post of your breathes Moabitish pride
ICONODULE, saying something like that just indicates how immature, and unable to discuss rationally matters of interest, you are. The Moabites were mostly punished for rejoicing in the overthrow and exile of the Jews, as I recall. They WERE prideful, yes. But that was not their primary problem. If you are going to accuse me of suffering from pride (which accusation only points out how prideful YOU are), you might do better to accuse me of Pharasaical pride (although I have already proven that I am less Pharisaical than others who have made just that accusation against me). I don't like using Scripture as a weapon, but I shall do it if I have to in order to make a point. I actually do NOT like making someone look foolish. But you are making yourself look foolish, so it's kind of hard to avoid it at this point.
You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw.
That's just an immature reply, and you know it. I have won the argument that you started, and you have a difficult time dealing with that fact of life. I would encourage you to learn how to communicate on an adult level, and if you wish to debate with me, do so without immature comments and holding to the matter at hand. Your inability to do that should not become a weapon that you direct against me, however ineffectively.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
39
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
hecma925 said:
Diego said:
I am not a Communist, though I once was. I grew up. I have never been a hippie. I simply believe in being civil, and almost always am, until someone becomes UNcivil with me. Then, I admit, I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason.
Similar to an unhinged child.
Who is the more unhinged? The one who responds in somewhat justifiable anger, or the one who initiates the problem, knowing what the results will be?
The one that says, "I tend to go completely ballistic with no rhyme or reason."

That's psychotic.
It's not psychotic at all. It is merely a turn of phrase. It does not imply anything dangerous, and you know that. Your attempt to make appear that it does is simply a sign of your inability to have an adult discussion.
Uh-huh.  Psychotic and immature would be more specific.
Again: Your inability to have an adult conversation should not be blamed on me.

Iconodule said:
Diego said:
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Diego, you do realize that many on this board are seminary educated.  Others are actual priests.  Your assumption that you know more than they, seems rather egotistical.

Besides, simply regurgitating the Scriptures is useless.  It is Pharisaical.

We must not simply read the Scriptures, we need to LIVE as Christ directed.  We are not just to sit and read and repeat... we are to repeat with our actions.

We are to take the lives of the saints as examples to strengthen our own resolve to live, to work, to serve others, and thereby, serve God.

...otherwise, it is all meaningless.

Weren't we arguing about the use of the Rosary on this thread once upon a time?
Liza, I may not be seminary educated, but I do have two BAs, an MA, and I have read Scripture more than once. I would wager that my education in these matters is as high or higher than most here. And I have actually NOT quoted Scripture chapter and obverse at all, although others have done so with me. Who is the more Pharisaical?
Every post of your breathes Moabitish pride
ICONODULE, saying something like that just indicates how immature, and unable to discuss rationally matters of interest, you are. The Moabites were mostly punished for rejoicing in the overthrow and exile of the Jews, as I recall. They WERE prideful, yes. But that was not their primary problem. If you are going to accuse me of suffering from pride (which accusation only points out how prideful YOU are), you might do better to accuse me of Pharasaical pride (although I have already proven that I am less Pharisaical than others who have made just that accusation against me). I don't like using Scripture as a weapon, but I shall do it if I have to in order to make a point. I actually do NOT like making someone look foolish. But you are making yourself look foolish, so it's kind of hard to avoid it at this point.
You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw.
That's just an immature reply, and you know it. I have won the argument that you started, and you have a difficult time dealing with that fact of life. I would encourage you to learn how to communicate on an adult level, and if you wish to debate with me, do so without immature comments and holding to the matter at hand. Your inability to do that should not become a weapon that you direct against me, however ineffectively.
You deserve not only to be given no food to eat, but also to have the dogs set upon you and to be pelted with horse manure
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Mor Ephrem said:
Diego said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Diego said:
Agabus said:
Diego said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Diego, you do realize that many on this board are seminary educated.  Others are actual priests.  Your assumption that you know more than they, seems rather egotistical.

Besides, simply regurgitating the Scriptures is useless.  It is Pharisaical.

We must not simply read the Scriptures, we need to LIVE as Christ directed.  We are not just to sit and read and repeat... we are to repeat with our actions.

We are to take the lives of the saints as examples to strengthen our own resolve to live, to work, to serve others, and thereby, serve God.

...otherwise, it is all meaningless.

Weren't we arguing about the use of the Rosary on this thread once upon a time?
Liza, I may not be seminary educated, but I do have two BAs, an MA, and I have read Scripture more than once. I would wager that my education in these matters is as high or higher than most here. And I have actually NOT quoted Scripture chapter and obverse at all, although others have done so with me. Who is the more Pharisaical?
Cool story, bro.

Your degrees aren't in Bible or theology.

I'm not saying you haven't read a book or two, but it's a bad flex to throw education around if it doesn't apply to the comment.

Also, your I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I act doesn't really help the argument that you know anything. Cite a damn source like a historian.
AGABUS, the point that I am making is that my education (in ANYTHING) is probably higher than most people's on this forum. And my BA in Philosophy was attained at one of only two universities  in America where the faculty of the Philosophy Department was majority theistic (then, I do NOT know about now). Also, as it was a Catholic school, at least nominally, I did have to take Religion courses. The other BA and MA were in History, where I did have to study the history of the biblical periods, etc. So, while my degrees may not be in theology (I shall readily grant that they are not), they are in disciplines closely enough related that I can, with at least some authority, speak on these issues and be believed.

I might ALSO add that LIZA was the one who brought up people's education and how much they know. I just responded accordingly. I am not about to take insults to my intelligence whilst lying down in the fetal position, thank you.
What position do you prefer getting insulted in, Diego?
I don't know. What do you prefer?
No one insults me, so I’ve never had to think about it.
Mor, I insult you more than I get insulted by every person I know, so your statement is false.

Eamonomae said:
I have no problems saying this whatsoever, but in the field of Humanities  or Social Sciences, your degree has no real authority in comparison to the argument you put forward. This is proven by the fact that such fields, at the academic level, tend to crossover; for instance, I had a Historian teach a Russian Political Science course at my college.

Father Gregory Hesse, a canon lawyer of the Catholic Church, held a doctorate in Thomistic Theology; but he became a frontier spokesman for the SSPX and insisted that the Novus Ordo Rite is invalid, and many people wouldn’t take his arguments seriously due to how logically contradictory the SSPX is in their existence.

Dr. Taylor Marshall, another Thomistic Doctor, has made content solely and exclusively focusing in on conspiracy theories:
https://m.youtube.com/user/Taylor0Marshall/videos

Fr. Rippenger, an exorcist who - surprise - has a Thomistic Doctorate and is a world renounced exorcist, has put forth the argument that Harry Potter has demonic spells in it and people can get possessed just by reading it. Something laughably falsifiable.

Unlike say something like physics or biology, it doesn’t take a genius to read a sociologist or an English literary critique.

So your arguments are more important.

Plus, even though you have a degree in theology, doesn’t mean you are a real theologian. REAL Theologians are those who have strived to grow spiritually and live a life of asceticism, letting the Holy Spirit guide their lives; not those who write Theses. Saint Paisios, Saint John Maximovitch, Saint John Kronstadt, Saint Gregory Palamas, and most of all, Saint John, didn’t need the degrees you people oh so desperately need to show off to show the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

Hell, Thomas Aquinas was more of a theologian than some of you people, who, as a Dominican, being enlightened to experience the Grace of God, wanted to burn all of his works because he realized they were trash in comparison to the Glory of God.
This is very true. I don't so much look for a degree as I look for the truth of an argument. I also don't look for membership in a particular Church, as I have seen absolute fools in EVERY Church. And if we relied on membership stats, we would all go out and be Roman Catholics, which membership is the largest in the world by far. But, I don't see (from a Lutheran point of view, of course) how Orthodoxy is much different than Roman Catholicism. Rome and Orthodoxy are both Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in nature. Granted, Orthodoxy does NOT have the evil of the Papacy to deal with, which is Anti-Christ, nor is it as infected by Modernism, but those are the only noticeable differences to me.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Diego said:
So far, all your responses are proving is that you cannot win a debate. The fact that I probably DO know the OT, the NT, and Church History as well or better than you do infuriates you. Those who start storefront churches generally neither know, nor care about, Church History. Their knowledge of the OT and the NT we would both agree is defective, and when put to the test, cannot hold up under rigorous analysis. The Lutheran understanding of Scripture and Church History, on the other hand, has held up for 502 years (almost). Martin Luther had no intention of starting a separate Church. If the Papacy (which was and is one of the horns of Anti-Christ, Islam being the other) had listened to him, all of this could have been settled within Church structures.

Now admittedly, once Luther's very limited reform was rejected, that opened the gates to all kinds of crap. Those who were waiting in the wings to DESTROY the Church were given a hearing, and you end up with Calvinism, Zwinglianism,and every other awful thing one can think of.

Remember, the Papacy is Irreformata. It cannot be reformed in its present state. It is rather like the situation under Gorbachev in Russia. He was, and still is, a very good man. But the Soviet Government was irredeemably evil, and could not be reformed. In spite of the very many holy men that have occupied the Papal Chair, there have been equally as many evil men in the office. That is because the Papacy is irredeemably evil as it is currently comprised.

Luther knew what he was doing. As long as a Church does not stray from the Confessions, all is well. Dropping them, well, that is another story, of course.

I would recommend that before criticising me, you take a moment to look in the mirror. According the West, Orthodoxy is in rebellion against the properly established Papal structures. You say they are in rebellion against the Oecumene (sp?). Lutherans say you BOTH have your issues, although the Romanists have a few more issues than Orthodoxy, we shall grant. I personally say nothing. I let the Confessions speak for me.
Even the most limited reform proposed by Luther in the 95 theses was not limited at all, particularly the “to wit” remarks.  And the more extreme reactions included early Lutheranism, which rather threw the baby out with the bathwater through a radical, stupid and tangential creation of a novel sacramental theology, which rejected the sacramental nature of chrismation or confirmation, holy matrimony, holy orders and then blasphemously described holy unction as a “curse.” 

For this reason, there is an inconsistency between Protestants who object to, for example, gay marriage, while belonging to a church which denied that Holy Matrimony is a holy sacrament or mystery.  If marriage is not a central mystery to the church, then what does it matter who engages in it?  The proper veneration of St. Mary then deteriorates under the Protestant idea, taken from Pharisaical Judaism and its successor, Rabinnical Judaism, that Holy Celibacy is somehow wrong and immoral, which we find rejected even in the Old Testament.  And thus the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos Martin Luther apparently accepted is now widely rejected, even in high church circles.

And the ease with which a liberal rennovationist Protestant theologian can therefore attack the traditionalist Protestants who object to sexual immorality and accuse them correctly of eisegesis, because they firstly share in the error of sola scriptura, at least ostensibly, but the traditional Protestants are rejecting large parts of the New Testament that discuss, for example, the benefits of a life of celibate virginity.  And it is made still easier when the founder of Protestantism is known to have essentially rejected the Epistle of St. James, and worse, declared that one should “sin boldly.”

In contrast, the Roman Catholic position, while not perfect, at least requires the Roman Catholic Church to, for example, demand traditional sexual morality, and to the extent they have been failing to do this under Pope Francis, they have been inconsistent with their own belief system in the same way the traditional Protestants have been.  And it is very sad.
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
762
Reaction score
71
Points
28
Faith
Catholic
Alpha60 said:
noahzarc1 said:
Diego said:
I know the OT, the NT, and Church history as well or better than you do, so please do me the courtesy of not insulting my intelligence.
This right here is exactly why the Protestant movement has been and continues to grow into total disarray. It is the reason people with this exact attitude go rent store fronts and start "new churches" and "church plants" because the "church" from which they broke didn't know the Bible the way they did. Heretic at its base root is one who chooses for themself in matters of faith or morals.

Your comment is the error of protestantism stemming from "sola scriptura." In your mind, to perceive you "know" the OT and NT better than others is to know the faith better than all.
One thing that initially surprised me greatly on joining the Orthodox Church was the frequency compared to any other church I’ve encountered, that you have priests and especially monastics who will answer “I don’t know,” and in those cases I later found out they are not formally doctrinally specified but rather fall into the realm of theologoumemna.  There is a great humility to this.

And this model extends into rejecting the Western doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity with the Eastern idea that God is essentially incomprehensible, and our knowledge of the Father comes from the incarnation of the only begotten Son and Word of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the uncreated grace of God, what St. Gregory Palamas and others call the uncreated energies, which are comprehensible, and which the Holy Spirit conveys to us.

Having the humility to say “I don’t know” is essential, because such a humility is the beginning of wisdom, as we are taught by the church.  There is also great wonder as a result; being able to admit  the unknowability of the Divine Essence liberates us from the horror of, for example, attempting to comprehend infinity from an anthropic perspective.  I think this humility is also a reason why the Orthodox have survived remarkably and even grown, where other churches have shrunk.
Protestants are always free to depart from any movement of which they are a part and still be "Christian" because departing and detracting is the essence of Protestantism. The Orthodox do not have this luxury. There is an essence of the faith that defines Orthodoxy that one cannot just depart and remain Orthodox. It is the reason in a number of replies in this thread that are attacking Orthodoxy there are a number of "In my opinion," type statements deemed to be authoritative. Backing these attacks are continuous statements about "educational level" which attempt to give authority to the opinion and paint the faith as a educational exercise. This person does not grasp the whole of Orthodoxy and the continued universal testimony that, as you pointed out and has been pointed out to me as well by a number of Orthodox priest and laymen, is not contained solely in academic terms.

The entire issue in Protestantism, even to this day, is the continuous academic jousting that occurs in order for one party to try to gain supremacy over another. In Orthodoxy, yes there is academia, but there is more importantly humility and silence. This is the great difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Protestantism has compiled a lot of books and titles and letters. Orthodoxy has compiled a lot of bones and blood and martyrs. Protestantism has compiled a long list of attacks. Orthodoxy has compiled a long list of saints. I choose the Orthodox way. I long ago rejected the Protestant way.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
So far, all your responses are proving is that you cannot win a debate. The fact that I probably DO know the OT, the NT, and Church History as well or better than you do infuriates you. Those who start storefront churches generally neither know, nor care about, Church History. Their knowledge of the OT and the NT we would both agree is defective, and when put to the test, cannot hold up under rigorous analysis. The Lutheran understanding of Scripture and Church History, on the other hand, has held up for 502 years (almost). Martin Luther had no intention of starting a separate Church. If the Papacy (which was and is one of the horns of Anti-Christ, Islam being the other) had listened to him, all of this could have been settled within Church structures.

Now admittedly, once Luther's very limited reform was rejected, that opened the gates to all kinds of crap. Those who were waiting in the wings to DESTROY the Church were given a hearing, and you end up with Calvinism, Zwinglianism,and every other awful thing one can think of.

Remember, the Papacy is Irreformata. It cannot be reformed in its present state. It is rather like the situation under Gorbachev in Russia. He was, and still is, a very good man. But the Soviet Government was irredeemably evil, and could not be reformed. In spite of the very many holy men that have occupied the Papal Chair, there have been equally as many evil men in the office. That is because the Papacy is irredeemably evil as it is currently comprised.

Luther knew what he was doing. As long as a Church does not stray from the Confessions, all is well. Dropping them, well, that is another story, of course.

I would recommend that before criticising me, you take a moment to look in the mirror. According the West, Orthodoxy is in rebellion against the properly established Papal structures. You say they are in rebellion against the Oecumene (sp?). Lutherans say you BOTH have your issues, although the Romanists have a few more issues than Orthodoxy, we shall grant. I personally say nothing. I let the Confessions speak for me.
Even the most limited reform proposed by Luther in the 95 theses was not limited at all, particularly the “to wit” remarks.  And the more extreme reactions included early Lutheranism, which rather threw the baby out with the bathwater through a radical, stupid and tangential creation of a novel sacramental theology, which rejected the sacramental nature of chrismation or confirmation, holy matrimony, holy orders and then blasphemously described holy unction as a “curse.”
Only an emotion-ridden, illogical individual would use such an emotional word as "stupid" to describe a theological point of view. It does not prove your point. It merely makes you look childish. Nor is Lutheran Sacramental theology novel, nor can you defend that it is. 

For this reason, there is an inconsistency between Protestants who object to, for example, gay marriage, while belonging to a church which denied that Holy Matrimony is a holy sacrament or mystery.  If marriage is not a central mystery to the church, then what does it matter who engages in it?
This is an illogical argument. Just from the perspective of a civil contract, for the entire history of the human race, marriage has been defended as a contract between ONE man and one or more women. One could perhaps make a case for polygyny (The marriage of a man with more than one woman). I would disagree with it for religious reasons, but an argument could be made. But one could NOT make a case for two men or two women.

The proper veneration of St. Mary then deteriorates under the Protestant idea, taken from Pharisaical Judaism and its successor, Rabinnical Judaism, that Holy Celibacy is somehow wrong and immoral, which we find rejected even in the Old Testament.  And thus the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos Martin Luther apparently accepted is now widely rejected, even in high church circles.
I am not so sure it is correct to state that Lutherans believe celibacy is wrong or immoral. What IS wrong or immoral is imposing it. Choosing it is another issue. Now, many Protestants do consider celibacy immoral, but Lutherans are not Protestant, except in the sense that the word was originally used politically.

And the ease with which a liberal rennovationist Protestant theologian can therefore attack the traditionalist Protestants who object to sexual immorality and accuse them correctly of eisegesis, because they firstly share in the error of sola scriptura, at least ostensibly, but the traditional Protestants are rejecting large parts of the New Testament that discuss, for example, the benefits of a life of celibate virginity.  And it is made still easier when the founder of Protestantism is known to have essentially rejected the Epistle of St. James,
Luther did NOT really reject the Book of James. He questioned it, but still included it in the New Testament.

and worse, declared that one should “sin boldly.”
I am not so sure he was actually encouraging sin. But if one IS going to sin, which Luther encouraged us NOT to do, one should at least do it right. This statement can be argued to be a deliberate exaggeration that any Germanic person can easily recognise is NOT meant to be taken seriously.

In contrast, the Roman Catholic position, while not perfect, at least requires the Roman Catholic Church to, for example, demand traditional sexual morality, and to the extent they have been failing to do this under Pope Francis, they have been inconsistent with their own belief system in the same way the traditional Protestants have been.  And it is very sad.
The Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, however valuable their traditional morality may be, are still Pelagian, or at best, Semi-Pelagian (very little difference, that) in their view of salvation. So your point is?
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
39
Faith
Ethiopian Jew
Isn't he the victim of a dead seminarian? . . 



Luther=German Church
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
39
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Diego said:
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
So far, all your responses are proving is that you cannot win a debate. The fact that I probably DO know the OT, the NT, and Church History as well or better than you do infuriates you. Those who start storefront churches generally neither know, nor care about, Church History. Their knowledge of the OT and the NT we would both agree is defective, and when put to the test, cannot hold up under rigorous analysis. The Lutheran understanding of Scripture and Church History, on the other hand, has held up for 502 years (almost). Martin Luther had no intention of starting a separate Church. If the Papacy (which was and is one of the horns of Anti-Christ, Islam being the other) had listened to him, all of this could have been settled within Church structures.

Now admittedly, once Luther's very limited reform was rejected, that opened the gates to all kinds of crap. Those who were waiting in the wings to DESTROY the Church were given a hearing, and you end up with Calvinism, Zwinglianism,and every other awful thing one can think of.

Remember, the Papacy is Irreformata. It cannot be reformed in its present state. It is rather like the situation under Gorbachev in Russia. He was, and still is, a very good man. But the Soviet Government was irredeemably evil, and could not be reformed. In spite of the very many holy men that have occupied the Papal Chair, there have been equally as many evil men in the office. That is because the Papacy is irredeemably evil as it is currently comprised.

Luther knew what he was doing. As long as a Church does not stray from the Confessions, all is well. Dropping them, well, that is another story, of course.

I would recommend that before criticising me, you take a moment to look in the mirror. According the West, Orthodoxy is in rebellion against the properly established Papal structures. You say they are in rebellion against the Oecumene (sp?). Lutherans say you BOTH have your issues, although the Romanists have a few more issues than Orthodoxy, we shall grant. I personally say nothing. I let the Confessions speak for me.
Even the most limited reform proposed by Luther in the 95 theses was not limited at all, particularly the “to wit” remarks.  And the more extreme reactions included early Lutheranism, which rather threw the baby out with the bathwater through a radical, stupid and tangential creation of a novel sacramental theology, which rejected the sacramental nature of chrismation or confirmation, holy matrimony, holy orders and then blasphemously described holy unction as a “curse.”
Only an emotion-ridden, illogical individual would use such an emotional word as "stupid" to describe a theological point of view. It does not prove your point. It merely makes you look childish. Nor is Lutheran Sacramental theology novel, nor can you defend that it is. 

For this reason, there is an inconsistency between Protestants who object to, for example, gay marriage, while belonging to a church which denied that Holy Matrimony is a holy sacrament or mystery.  If marriage is not a central mystery to the church, then what does it matter who engages in it?
This is an illogical argument. Just from the perspective of a civil contract, for the entire history of the human race, marriage has been defended as a contract between ONE man and one or more women. One could perhaps make a case for polygyny (The marriage of a man with more than one woman). I would disagree with it for religious reasons, but an argument could be made. But one could NOT make a case for two men or two women.

The proper veneration of St. Mary then deteriorates under the Protestant idea, taken from Pharisaical Judaism and its successor, Rabinnical Judaism, that Holy Celibacy is somehow wrong and immoral, which we find rejected even in the Old Testament.  And thus the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos Martin Luther apparently accepted is now widely rejected, even in high church circles.
I am not so sure it is correct to state that Lutherans believe celibacy is wrong or immoral. What IS wrong or immoral is imposing it. Choosing it is another issue. Now, many Protestants do consider celibacy immoral, but Lutherans are not Protestant, except in the sense that the word was originally used politically.

And the ease with which a liberal rennovationist Protestant theologian can therefore attack the traditionalist Protestants who object to sexual immorality and accuse them correctly of eisegesis, because they firstly share in the error of sola scriptura, at least ostensibly, but the traditional Protestants are rejecting large parts of the New Testament that discuss, for example, the benefits of a life of celibate virginity.  And it is made still easier when the founder of Protestantism is known to have essentially rejected the Epistle of St. James,
Luther did NOT really reject the Book of James. He questioned it, but still included it in the New Testament.

and worse, declared that one should “sin boldly.”
I am not so sure he was actually encouraging sin. But if one IS going to sin, which Luther encouraged us NOT to do, one should at least do it right. This statement can be argued to be a deliberate exaggeration that any Germanic person can easily recognise is NOT meant to be taken seriously.

In contrast, the Roman Catholic position, while not perfect, at least requires the Roman Catholic Church to, for example, demand traditional sexual morality, and to the extent they have been failing to do this under Pope Francis, they have been inconsistent with their own belief system in the same way the traditional Protestants have been.  And it is very sad.
The Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, however valuable their traditional morality may be, are still Pelagian, or at best, Semi-Pelagian (very little difference, that) in their view of salvation. So your point is?
Your heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
So far, all your responses are proving is that you cannot win a debate. The fact that I probably DO know the OT, the NT, and Church History as well or better than you do infuriates you. Those who start storefront churches generally neither know, nor care about, Church History. Their knowledge of the OT and the NT we would both agree is defective, and when put to the test, cannot hold up under rigorous analysis. The Lutheran understanding of Scripture and Church History, on the other hand, has held up for 502 years (almost). Martin Luther had no intention of starting a separate Church. If the Papacy (which was and is one of the horns of Anti-Christ, Islam being the other) had listened to him, all of this could have been settled within Church structures.

Now admittedly, once Luther's very limited reform was rejected, that opened the gates to all kinds of crap. Those who were waiting in the wings to DESTROY the Church were given a hearing, and you end up with Calvinism, Zwinglianism,and every other awful thing one can think of.

Remember, the Papacy is Irreformata. It cannot be reformed in its present state. It is rather like the situation under Gorbachev in Russia. He was, and still is, a very good man. But the Soviet Government was irredeemably evil, and could not be reformed. In spite of the very many holy men that have occupied the Papal Chair, there have been equally as many evil men in the office. That is because the Papacy is irredeemably evil as it is currently comprised.

Luther knew what he was doing. As long as a Church does not stray from the Confessions, all is well. Dropping them, well, that is another story, of course.

I would recommend that before criticising me, you take a moment to look in the mirror. According the West, Orthodoxy is in rebellion against the properly established Papal structures. You say they are in rebellion against the Oecumene (sp?). Lutherans say you BOTH have your issues, although the Romanists have a few more issues than Orthodoxy, we shall grant. I personally say nothing. I let the Confessions speak for me.
Even the most limited reform proposed by Luther in the 95 theses was not limited at all, particularly the “to wit” remarks.  And the more extreme reactions included early Lutheranism, which rather threw the baby out with the bathwater through a radical, stupid and tangential creation of a novel sacramental theology, which rejected the sacramental nature of chrismation or confirmation, holy matrimony, holy orders and then blasphemously described holy unction as a “curse.”
Only an emotion-ridden, illogical individual would use such an emotional word as "stupid" to describe a theological point of view. It does not prove your point. It merely makes you look childish. Nor is Lutheran Sacramental theology novel, nor can you defend that it is. 

For this reason, there is an inconsistency between Protestants who object to, for example, gay marriage, while belonging to a church which denied that Holy Matrimony is a holy sacrament or mystery.  If marriage is not a central mystery to the church, then what does it matter who engages in it?
This is an illogical argument. Just from the perspective of a civil contract, for the entire history of the human race, marriage has been defended as a contract between ONE man and one or more women. One could perhaps make a case for polygyny (The marriage of a man with more than one woman). I would disagree with it for religious reasons, but an argument could be made. But one could NOT make a case for two men or two women.

The proper veneration of St. Mary then deteriorates under the Protestant idea, taken from Pharisaical Judaism and its successor, Rabinnical Judaism, that Holy Celibacy is somehow wrong and immoral, which we find rejected even in the Old Testament.  And thus the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos Martin Luther apparently accepted is now widely rejected, even in high church circles.
I am not so sure it is correct to state that Lutherans believe celibacy is wrong or immoral. What IS wrong or immoral is imposing it. Choosing it is another issue. Now, many Protestants do consider celibacy immoral, but Lutherans are not Protestant, except in the sense that the word was originally used politically.

And the ease with which a liberal rennovationist Protestant theologian can therefore attack the traditionalist Protestants who object to sexual immorality and accuse them correctly of eisegesis, because they firstly share in the error of sola scriptura, at least ostensibly, but the traditional Protestants are rejecting large parts of the New Testament that discuss, for example, the benefits of a life of celibate virginity.  And it is made still easier when the founder of Protestantism is known to have essentially rejected the Epistle of St. James,
Luther did NOT really reject the Book of James. He questioned it, but still included it in the New Testament.

and worse, declared that one should “sin boldly.”
I am not so sure he was actually encouraging sin. But if one IS going to sin, which Luther encouraged us NOT to do, one should at least do it right. This statement can be argued to be a deliberate exaggeration that any Germanic person can easily recognise is NOT meant to be taken seriously.

In contrast, the Roman Catholic position, while not perfect, at least requires the Roman Catholic Church to, for example, demand traditional sexual morality, and to the extent they have been failing to do this under Pope Francis, they have been inconsistent with their own belief system in the same way the traditional Protestants have been.  And it is very sad.
The Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, however valuable their traditional morality may be, are still Pelagian, or at best, Semi-Pelagian (very little difference, that) in their view of salvation. So your point is?
Your heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
Misquoting Luther simply indicates you have a low IQ.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Diego said:
When Diego makes a digression into Lutheranism from a topic unrelated to Lutheranism, I will split it and combine it here.

--Agabus


I know the Western development of the Rosary. I am a bit unfamiliar with its Eastern background, but the idea that it is of Eastern provenance would not shock me. The East always has been more mystical than the more practical West. Sometimes I wish the West had more of that element than it does. Granted, you do have Certain Saints (St. Therese of Avila, St. John of the Cross, etc), who were EXTREMELY mystical, but they were individuals. The Western Church as a whole is another matter.
AGABUS, I did not make a digression into Lutheranism. I merely pointed out Luther's use of the Rosary. But please, do continue to be illogical. It merely displays your lack of even-handedness. It was others who took us down the Lutheran rabbit hole, not me.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
Iconodule said:
Diego said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Diego said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Luther was and remains a heretic.
By your definition, anybody who doesn't think exactly like you do is a heretic
Wrong.
Whatever. You still have no point. And I may in fact be wrong on this. But from the content of your posts, any rational person would be led to believe precisely what I said. I have no intention of insulting you. But by any definition, you are exceedingly narrow-minded, far more so than any other person I have met in this forum. Although I have often been quite nasty to you, a matter that has actually led me to the Confessional on one occasion, I have NEVER started it with you. I have only been nasty to you when you have provoked me with an equal or greater level of nastiness. I shall not apologise for considering you an extremely distasteful and unpleasant individual. Again, these are NOT insults, for which I could rightly be punished on OCNet. These are simple observations that are being made after seeing how you have treated me and others with whom you disagree. You are certainly free to disagree with me and anyone else. But it is immoral of you in the extreme to be rude and disrespectful, and I personally think you need to go to Confession regarding the subject, just as I have. But that is my opinion only, and I am not (nor do I wish to be) in charge of your soul. As I have said before: Opinions are like belly buttons. We've all got one, and they are all different.
Wrong.
That is also an opinion, which again, is quite subjective. And where am I wrong? Which point in my statement is wrong? Or is it ALL wrong? Please do be more precise.
Wrong again.
What is wrong? You cannot seem to do more than say that I am wrong. In other words, you have no argument, and simply do not wish to admit it. Thank you. I accept your concession that you have lost the debate.
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Faith
Salve Regina
Jurisdiction
La Virgin de Cobre
Diego said:
Diego said:
When Diego makes a digression into Lutheranism from a topic unrelated to Lutheranism, I will split it and combine it here.

--Agabus


I know the Western development of the Rosary. I am a bit unfamiliar with its Eastern background, but the idea that it is of Eastern provenance would not shock me. The East always has been more mystical than the more practical West. Sometimes I wish the West had more of that element than it does. Granted, you do have Certain Saints (St. Therese of Avila, St. John of the Cross, etc), who were EXTREMELY mystical, but they were individuals. The Western Church as a whole is another matter.
AGABUS, I did not make a digression into Lutheranism. I merely pointed out Luther's use of the Rosary. But please, do continue to be illogical.
You also brought up the Augsburg Confession. Consider it the seeds.

It merely displays your lack of even-handedness.

LOL.

But do go ahead. Question basic moderation.


It was others who took us down the Lutheran rabbit hole, not me.
You followed. And even if you were innocent in this instance (hint: you weren't), your long history of making everything about Lutheranism testifies against you.

Anyway, have fun. This is the venue for it.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,372
Reaction score
239
Points
63
Age
40
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Alpha60 said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Out of curiosity, what is the provenance of that image?
Its provenance is the death of the heresiarch Luther and the sensus fidelium that he was welcomed into Hell shortly thereafter with all the pomp of an Anti-Palm Sunday.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Diego said:
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
No, it really doesn’t.  The Martin Luther insults app is a mirror into the dark consciousness of a depraved heretic.  By their fruits shall ye know them.

Have you seen the horrible evil of his book On the Jews and Their Lies?

I can understand and sympathize with the Reformation; I admire St. Jan Hus and agree with the Czech Slovak Orthodox Church declaring him a saint, confessor and martyr. 

But Martin Luther, while less sinister than John Calvin, was a nasty piece of work.  There are some other Lutheran figures of the 16th century who seem decent, such as the Swedish Bishop of Uppsala.  However, on the whole, Luther himself is morally reprehensible.

Our Lord says “by their fruits ye shall know them.”  Compare these random sayings of Luther with all of the quotes we have attributed to the Church Fathers.  Look at the Patristic Insults Thread.  The Fathers, while occasionally tossing a grenade of sharp wit at the Gnostics, Arians and Iconoclasts, never engaged in the kind of scatological, filthy commentary of Luther.  And this is true if you read them in context or out of context.

Indeed, the polar opposite of Luther I think is the Desert Fathers, who are randomly quoted in the Sayings thereof, and what they say is filled with superabundant grace, love and wisdom.

And this takes us to the great problem with Luther: where is his love?  Where do we see the kind of divine love that blasts forth from St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and the other Apostles, and their successors like St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, and the Cappodacians?

Where is the beautiful humility of St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, whose meditations on God reflected upon the unknowability of the Divine Essence?

Where is Luther in the desert, practicing monasticism that he had committed to, in the manner of St. Anthony?  He rejected his vocation, which is a horrible thing.  If he had moral decency, he would not have allowed himself to be conquered by concupiscience, but would have lived as a monk, focusing his love on God and the image of God present in every human being, including the Jews.

For as St. Paul said, in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body [a]to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, [c]darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. 13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the [d]greatest of these is love.“

In Luther I mainly see hate: for the Papacy and its adherents, for individual Roman Catholics, for other Protestants Luther disagreed with, for Anabaptists, who he stated should be killed like wild dogs, and for the Jews: an impassioned hatred which I fear constitutes the deadly passion of wrath.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
No, it really doesn’t.  The Martin Luther insults app is a mirror into the dark consciousness of a depraved heretic.  By their fruits shall ye know them.

Have you seen the horrible evil of his book On the Jews and Their Lies?

I can understand and sympathize with the Reformation; I admire St. Jan Hus and agree with the Czech Slovak Orthodox Church declaring him a saint, confessor and martyr. 

But Martin Luther, while less sinister than John Calvin, was a nasty piece of work.  There are some other Lutheran figures of the 16th century who seem decent, such as the Swedish Bishop of Uppsala.  However, on the whole, Luther himself is morally reprehensible.

Our Lord says “by their fruits ye shall know them.”  Compare these random sayings of Luther with all of the quotes we have attributed to the Church Fathers.  Look at the Patristic Insults Thread.  The Fathers, while occasionally tossing a grenade of sharp wit at the Gnostics, Arians and Iconoclasts, never engaged in the kind of scatological, filthy commentary of Luther.  And this is true if you read them in context or out of context.

Indeed, the polar opposite of Luther I think is the Desert Fathers, who are randomly quoted in the Sayings thereof, and what they say is filled with superabundant grace, love and wisdom.

And this takes us to the great problem with Luther: where is his love?  Where do we see the kind of divine love that blasts forth from St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and the other Apostles, and their successors like St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, and the Cappodacians?

Where is the beautiful humility of St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, whose meditations on God reflected upon the unknowability of the Divine Essence?

Where is Luther in the desert, practicing monasticism that he had committed to, in the manner of St. Anthony?  He rejected his vocation, which is a horrible thing.  If he had moral decency, he would not have allowed himself to be conquered by concupiscience, but would have lived as a monk, focusing his love on God and the image of God present in every human being, including the Jews.

For as St. Paul said, in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body [a]to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, [c]darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. 13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the [d]greatest of these is love.“

In Luther I mainly see hate: for the Papacy and its adherents, for individual Roman Catholics, for other Protestants Luther disagreed with, for Anabaptists, who he stated should be killed like wild dogs, and for the Jews: an impassioned hatred which I fear constitutes the deadly passion of wrath.

We have been over Luther's book on the Jews many times. It's less than friendly time is not relevant to Christian discussion, as one, it did not apply to them, and two was very little different than how 95% of Europeans felt about Jews.

Jan Hus was essentially Luther before Luther, without the streak of anger in him that Luther had. By calling one a Saint and the other a sinner you merely show your lack of impartiality between East and West.

Blaming Luther for leaving the monastery he never should have joined in the first place and which, had it been properly run, would never have admitted him merely again, shows your lack of impartiality.

The Luther app merely proves that it's user lacks intelligence enough to make his own comments, and must instead quote someone else more competent. There is a similar Shakespeare app. Does its existence make Shakespeare anything near what Luther was, good or bad? No. It simply indicates that both men could insult well.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
74
Location
Finland
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church of Finland
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
No, it really doesn’t.  The Martin Luther insults app is a mirror into the dark consciousness of a depraved heretic.  By their fruits shall ye know them.

Have you seen the horrible evil of his book On the Jews and Their Lies?
The pot can't really get away with calling the kettle black. Of course Luther made anti-Semitic statements, but antisemitism is far from unknown in the history of the Orthodox Church. Since his liturgy is widely celebrated in Eastern Orthodox churches, I'll mention John Chrysostom's famous (notorious?) homilies on the Jews. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos)
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
I might add, based on your post breaking off the thread in the previous location, Luther was, and remained, Catholic throughout his life. "Lutheranism" is in fact the best and purest expression of the Catholic and Orthodox Faith. He certainly would have challenged anyone who said he wasn't Catholic.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
FinnJames said:
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
No, it really doesn’t.  The Martin Luther insults app is a mirror into the dark consciousness of a depraved heretic.  By their fruits shall ye know them.

Have you seen the horrible evil of his book On the Jews and Their Lies?
The pot can't really get away with calling the kettle black. Of course Luther made anti-Semitic statements, but antisemitism is far from unknown in the history of the Orthodox Church. Since his liturgy is widely celebrated in Eastern Orthodox churches, I'll mention John Chrysostom's famous (notorious?) homilies on the Jews. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos)
No, no, no.  We have been over this canard ad nauseum, ad infinitum.  Nontheless, since it is in my opinion a red herring in this thread, I am posting a thread in the private fora to address it one final time.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Diego said:
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
No, it really doesn’t.  The Martin Luther insults app is a mirror into the dark consciousness of a depraved heretic.  By their fruits shall ye know them.

Have you seen the horrible evil of his book On the Jews and Their Lies?

I can understand and sympathize with the Reformation; I admire St. Jan Hus and agree with the Czech Slovak Orthodox Church declaring him a saint, confessor and martyr. 

But Martin Luther, while less sinister than John Calvin, was a nasty piece of work.  There are some other Lutheran figures of the 16th century who seem decent, such as the Swedish Bishop of Uppsala.  However, on the whole, Luther himself is morally reprehensible.

Our Lord says “by their fruits ye shall know them.”  Compare these random sayings of Luther with all of the quotes we have attributed to the Church Fathers.  Look at the Patristic Insults Thread.  The Fathers, while occasionally tossing a grenade of sharp wit at the Gnostics, Arians and Iconoclasts, never engaged in the kind of scatological, filthy commentary of Luther.  And this is true if you read them in context or out of context.

Indeed, the polar opposite of Luther I think is the Desert Fathers, who are randomly quoted in the Sayings thereof, and what they say is filled with superabundant grace, love and wisdom.

And this takes us to the great problem with Luther: where is his love?  Where do we see the kind of divine love that blasts forth from St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and the other Apostles, and their successors like St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, and the Cappodacians?

Where is the beautiful humility of St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, whose meditations on God reflected upon the unknowability of the Divine Essence?

Where is Luther in the desert, practicing monasticism that he had committed to, in the manner of St. Anthony?  He rejected his vocation, which is a horrible thing.  If he had moral decency, he would not have allowed himself to be conquered by concupiscience, but would have lived as a monk, focusing his love on God and the image of God present in every human being, including the Jews.

For as St. Paul said, in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body [a]to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, [c]darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. 13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the [d]greatest of these is love.“

In Luther I mainly see hate: for the Papacy and its adherents, for individual Roman Catholics, for other Protestants Luther disagreed with, for Anabaptists, who he stated should be killed like wild dogs, and for the Jews: an impassioned hatred which I fear constitutes the deadly passion of wrath.

We have been over Luther's book on the Jews many times. It's less than friendly time is not relevant to Christian discussion, as one, it did not apply to them, and two was very little different than how 95% of Europeans felt about Jews.



By their fruits ye shall know them.  Martin Luther’s conduct towards the Jews was horrific, incredibly evil, and vile.  Especially given how he exploited members of their community to teach him Hebrew and expropriated their Old Testament text for Christian use rather than using the extremely reliable Vulgate or Septuagint translations that were the patrimony of the church.

Jan Hus was essentially Luther before Luther, without the streak of anger in him that Luther had. By calling one a Saint and the other a sinner you merely show your lack of impartiality between East and West.
Jan Hus was not Luther before Luther; rather, he was what Luther should have been.

And it has nothing to do with East vs. West.  That argument makes no logical sense.  Indeed, in your attempt at refuting my point, you concede the reason why I am prepared to venerate Jan Hus and not Martin Luther: because Hus lacked the diabolical wrath which characterized Luther.

Blaming Luther for leaving the monastery he never should have joined in the first place and which, had it been properly run, would never have admitted him merely again, shows your lack of impartiality.
My lack of impartiality?  I did not force Luther to join that monastery.  No one did.  He joined of his own free will, against the wishes and advice of his father, who wanted him to practice law (like Calvin).  It was his choice, his informed choice, and leaving it is therefore his moral responsibility.

The Luther app merely proves that it's user lacks intelligence enough to make his own comments, and must instead quote someone else more competent. There is a similar Shakespeare app. Does its existence make Shakespeare anything near what Luther was, good or bad? No. It simply indicates that both men could insult well.
You are missing the point: Luther’s writing contains a preponderance of insults, which shows a lack of humility and a hateful nature.  According to the instructions of St. Paul, to try every spirit, we should reject him, and owing to his tampering with sacred scripture and his radical, novel interpretation of what remained in the New Testament he presented, his “Gospel” qualifies as a different Gospel preached by St. Paul, and Luther is therefore anathema according to Galatians 1:8.  He is what our Lord referred to as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
Alpha60 said:
Diego said:
My, my! Such language! Rather reminiscent of Luther. In fact, it might even be a quote from him, which would not surprise me, as you have nothing original to say that is worth you taking the time to write it, and even more, me taking the time to read it, let alone respond to it. You have to quote someone else of much greater skill at writing and debate than yourself, as you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

Now that I look more closely, I think the last several of your comments have been Luther quotes. The problem is, you have quoted him WAY out of context, in a way that makes his quotes seem childish. In their original context, they have value, but not in the way you are misusing them. That abuse of Luther simply succeeds in making you look juvenile.
No, it really doesn’t.  The Martin Luther insults app is a mirror into the dark consciousness of a depraved heretic.  By their fruits shall ye know them.

Have you seen the horrible evil of his book On the Jews and Their Lies?

I can understand and sympathize with the Reformation; I admire St. Jan Hus and agree with the Czech Slovak Orthodox Church declaring him a saint, confessor and martyr. 

But Martin Luther, while less sinister than John Calvin, was a nasty piece of work.  There are some other Lutheran figures of the 16th century who seem decent, such as the Swedish Bishop of Uppsala.  However, on the whole, Luther himself is morally reprehensible.

Our Lord says “by their fruits ye shall know them.”  Compare these random sayings of Luther with all of the quotes we have attributed to the Church Fathers.  Look at the Patristic Insults Thread.  The Fathers, while occasionally tossing a grenade of sharp wit at the Gnostics, Arians and Iconoclasts, never engaged in the kind of scatological, filthy commentary of Luther.  And this is true if you read them in context or out of context.

Indeed, the polar opposite of Luther I think is the Desert Fathers, who are randomly quoted in the Sayings thereof, and what they say is filled with superabundant grace, love and wisdom.

And this takes us to the great problem with Luther: where is his love?  Where do we see the kind of divine love that blasts forth from St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and the other Apostles, and their successors like St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, and the Cappodacians?

Where is the beautiful humility of St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, whose meditations on God reflected upon the unknowability of the Divine Essence?

Where is Luther in the desert, practicing monasticism that he had committed to, in the manner of St. Anthony?  He rejected his vocation, which is a horrible thing.  If he had moral decency, he would not have allowed himself to be conquered by concupiscience, but would have lived as a monk, focusing his love on God and the image of God present in every human being, including the Jews.

For as St. Paul said, in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body [a]to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, [c]darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. 13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the [d]greatest of these is love.“

In Luther I mainly see hate: for the Papacy and its adherents, for individual Roman Catholics, for other Protestants Luther disagreed with, for Anabaptists, who he stated should be killed like wild dogs, and for the Jews: an impassioned hatred which I fear constitutes the deadly passion of wrath.

We have been over Luther's book on the Jews many times. It's less than friendly time is not relevant to Christian discussion, as one, it did not apply to them, and two was very little different than how 95% of Europeans felt about Jews.



By their fruits ye shall know them.  Martin Luther’s conduct towards the Jews was horrific, incredibly evil, and vile.  Especially given how he exploited members of their community to teach him Hebrew and expropriated their Old Testament text for Christian use rather than using the extremely reliable Vulgate or Septuagint translations that were the patrimony of the church.

So I suppose you will agree that John Chrysostom was equally vile toward Jews?

Jan Hus was essentially Luther before Luther, without the streak of anger in him that Luther had. By calling one a Saint and the other a sinner you merely show your lack of impartiality between East and West.
Jan Hus was not Luther before Luther; rather, he was what Luther should have been.

And it has nothing to do with East vs. West.  That argument makes no logical sense.  Indeed, in your attempt at refuting my point, you concede the reason why I am prepared to venerate Jan Hus and not Martin Luther: because Hus lacked the diabolical wrath which characterized Luther.
Jan Hus was gentler. Your point?

Blaming Luther for leaving the monastery he never should have joined in the first place and which, had it been properly run, would never have admitted him merely again, shows your lack of impartiality.
My lack of impartiality?  I did not force Luther to join that monastery.  No one did.  He joined of his own free will, against the wishes and advice of his father, who wanted him to practice law (like Calvin).  It was his choice, his informed choice, and leaving it is therefore his moral responsibility.
I agree he never should have joined. He also should never have been admitted, and it was his moral responsibility to leave at once when he realised that fact.

The Luther app merely proves that it's user lacks intelligence enough to make his own comments, and must instead quote someone else more competent. There is a similar Shakespeare app. Does its existence make Shakespeare anything near what Luther was, good or bad? No. It simply indicates that both men could insult well.
You are missing the point: Luther’s writing contains a preponderance of insults, which shows a lack of humility and a hateful nature.  According to the instructions of St. Paul, to try every spirit, we should reject him, and owing to his tampering with sacred scripture and his radical, novel interpretation of what remained in the New Testament he presented, his “Gospel” qualifies as a different Gospel preached by St. Paul, and Luther is therefore anathema according to Galatians 1:8.  He is what our Lord referred to as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Luther's writings do not contain a preponderance of insults any more than the Bard's do. Grow up. They contain some insults. So do Shakespeare's. Anyone who has to use either app in an argument just proves himself to be incompetent.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Diego said:
We have been over Luther's book on the Jews many times. It's less than friendly time is not relevant to Christian discussion, as one, it did not apply to them, and two was very little different than how 95% of Europeans felt about Jews.

By their fruits ye shall know them.  Martin Luther’s conduct towards the Jews was horrific, incredibly evil, and vile.  Especially given how he exploited members of their community to teach him Hebrew and expropriated their Old Testament text for Christian use rather than using the extremely reliable Vulgate or Septuagint translations that were the patrimony of the church.

So I suppose you will agree that John Chrysostom was equally vile toward Jews?
No, I do not, at all.  I would say that St. John Chrysostom, who was himself probably of Jewish descent (demographically, most Christians who belong to a “Patriarchate of Antioch”, whether Antiochian, Syriac, Melkite or Maronite, are), treated Jews in a saintly manner, and his homily is misinterpreted, and I have authored this post in order to clarify the matter, in the private forums.  Are you able to access that?

Jan Hus was gentler. Your point?
My point is that he was saintlier.  Being gentle is an aspect of saintliness.  One of the Desert Fathers said it would be sinful even to resurrect the dead, if done in anger.  Insofar as Martin Luther is not gentle, or humble, or loving, or gracious, or Christ-like, I don’t feel that he is worthy of any Christian admiration or respect.  It boggles my mind that churches even keep his name on them, because aside from the Pauline injunction against that kind of branding, there is nothing desirable about Martin Luther, nothing worthy of saintly veneration, and these churches would be better served by calling themselves “Evangelical Catholic” churches or “Baltic-Nordic-Germanic” churches after the fashion of the Anglicans.


I agree he never should have joined. He also should never have been admitted, and it was his moral responsibility to leave at once when he realised that fact.
I did not say I think he should never have joined.  I said I think he never should have left.

In my opinion, his father exerted a destructive, wordly influence which could have been toxic, and contributed to Luther later falling out with the monastery where, by all accounts, he initially did find both peace and an excellent Christian mentor among the friars.  Rather, I think Luther should have remained in the monastery, and used his legal training to acquire a knowledge of canon law, so that he could have served the Augustinian order as a canonist and canon lawyer, settling ecclesiastical disputes which in those era were much more frequent and severe than at present.

Once you join a monastery and make final vows, you have a moral responsibility to not leave, even in some cases to the point of martyrdom.  Many great Orthodox and Catholic monasteries including the monks led by St. Moses the Black were martyred “with all hands”; among Catholics this extends to the saintly martyrs who were killed by the horrible person of King Henry VIII, during the illegal and morally repugnant Dissolution of the Monasteries, for refusing to leave those holy sanctums in which they had vowed stability. 

A monk can leave a monastery only with the blessing of his hegumen, in order to serve the church in a specific way, for example, by founding another monastery in a new location, or, if there is a horrible schism due to heresy and the hegumen decides to evacuate the brethren, this has happened on rare occasions, but usually in such cases, the brethren will stand their ground.

However, even if we accept that Luther’s departure was legitimate, he should in that case immediately have sought to maintain adherence to the Rule he vowed to obey, and should have organized an Augustinian friary in what became the “Lutheran” church, in a land such as Saxony where the Elector agreed to protect the brethren, in which he should have remained until his demise.  And regarding women forced into convents, if he was concerned about this, working with the authorities sympathetic to him to organize an investigation and the possible evacuation of nuns who had been effectively imprisoned against their will, would have been acceptable, whereas personally working with a group of men to break into a convent in the pale moonlight and smuggle women out in pickle barrels, and then, worse, violating his vow of celibacy by marrying one of the nuns, which has the effect of casting doubt on the legitimacy of the entire enterprise, was deeply and fundamentally immoral.

The Luther app merely proves that it's user lacks intelligence enough to make his own comments, and must instead quote someone else more competent. There is a similar Shakespeare app. Does its existence make Shakespeare anything near what Luther was, good or bad? No. It simply indicates that both men could insult well.
You are missing the point: Luther’s writing contains a preponderance of insults, which shows a lack of humility and a hateful nature.  According to the instructions of St. Paul, to try every spirit, we should reject him, and owing to his tampering with sacred scripture and his radical, novel interpretation of what remained in the New Testament he presented, his “Gospel” qualifies as a different Gospel preached by St. Paul, and Luther is therefore anathema according to Galatians 1:8.  He is what our Lord referred to as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Luther's writings do not contain a preponderance of insults any more than the Bard's do. Grow up. They contain some insults. So do Shakespeare's. Anyone who has to use either app in an argument just proves himself to be incompetent.
???

You are missing the point.  Firstly, Shakespeare is not someone who we are supposed to regard as a font of religious wisdom; on the contrary he was a secular entertainer working in a field which the Church in antiquity regarded as immoral, fundamentally immoral, to the point that, probably well past the era of Shakespeare, someone who was a theatrical performer was canonically required to renounce that profession anterior to baptism.

No one has to use the app.  The app was written for entertainment purposes, and Iconodule’s use of it against you, and my use of it against you back in 2017, were in both cases hilarious (in part because the source of the quotations, from some of the most prominent writings of Luther, was not recognized).  It was admittedly a touch mean, but it was also cracking good fun, some irreverent ribbing as it were.    :laugh:

The use of a Shakespearean insults app on the other hand would not be topically relevant or therefore amusing at all in this context.  ::)
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
39
Faith
Ethiopian Jew
Are you ready to RUUUMBLE !
 

Diego

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
47
Faith
Lutheran LCMS
Jurisdiction
Nebraska District
Incidentally,  on this topic, Luther actually did NOT delete a thing from the Hail Mary. Prior to the Council of Trent, the Hail Mary consisted only of the Angelic Salutation.  Luther merely rejected the fact that Trent added direct prayers to Mother Mary. He continued to use the pre-Tridentine version of the Hail Mary until his death. He died in 1546, the year the Council was called, so how could he have used an addition that did not exist during his lifetime? I apologise to you all for being incorrect on this matter.
 

JTLoganville

High Elder
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
787
Reaction score
117
Points
43
Location
Pennsylvania
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox
One of the best ways to begin with understanding Luther's view of Mary is  Luther’s Marian hymn, completed A.D. 1545, one year before his death. 

Luther scholars frequently--generally correctly--differentiate between "young, Catholic Luther" and "old, Protestant Luther".  Well, here is "old Protestant Luther, some 28 years after posting the 95 Theses sounding very Catholic indeed:

To me she's dear, the worthy maid,
And I cannot forget her;
Praise, honor, virtue her are said,
Then all will love her better.
I seek her good,
And if I should
Right evil fare,
I do not care,
She'll make up for it to me
With love and truth that will not tire,
Which she will ever show me,
And do all my desire.

She wears of purest gold a crown
Twelve stars their rays are twining,
Her rainment, glorious as the sun,
And bright from far is shining.
Her feet the moon
Are set upon
She is the bride
With the Lord to hide.
Sore travail is upon her;
She bringest forth a noble Son
Whom all the world must honor,
Their king, the only one.

That makes the dragon rage and roar,
He will the child upswallow;
His raging comes to nothing more;
No jot of gain will follow.
The infant high
Up to the sky
Away is heft
And he is left
On earth,all mad with murder.
The mother now alone is she,
But God will watchful guard her.
And the right Father he.


 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
21,477
Reaction score
983
Points
113
Age
160
Location
Wandering Fool
Faith
Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
Jurisdiction
Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
O God, if Luther is dead, who will explain the Gospel to us?

-Albrecht Dürer
 
Top