I Certainly Don't Think Hitler Was As Bad As Luther

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1651813' date='Sep 9 2008, 09:08 PM']Saying Luther was a worse evil than Hitler in no way diminishes Hitler's evil. I think it's rather a commentary on the grave damage DJ sees Luther having inflicted upon the Church, who is the Bride of Christ. While one may agree or not, it appears people have drawn conclusions and made accusations without explanation. Thus the question appears to be disingenuous character assassination rather than an honest attempt at dialogue.

I assure you, apart from his deplorable habit of wearing ties with short sleeve shirts, DJ is unimpeachable.[/quote]


You are a Gentleman and a Scholar

And in my own defense I live in Houston have been required to wear a tie and drive a truck with no AC.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[rkwright]

So can you name a protestant that didn't go to heaven? Or one that was not in Christ's Church when they died?

Edited September 10, 2008 by rkwright

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652045' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:26 AM']I said that proportional to the population ofthe time the Religous wars caused by the reformation killed more than the war hitler caused. To give you an idea in Germany alone, the 30 years war alone, killed about 8 million people... the vast majority of whcih were civilians....this does not include deaths in other areas directly or indirectly involved in the war. Further it was out of a MUCH smaller population. That is only one religous war started in Christiandom by Luthers shattering of Christiandom.



PS How did I just not see this thread at all? when was it started.[/quote]


Wow i have to stop typing so fast when I am annoyed look at all those errors, I mean I know I am an awful speller but man thats bad even for me.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651620' date='Sep 9 2008, 04:45 PM']So i guess debate, was luther worse then Hitler ?[/quote]

Depends on how you view the Protestant churches really. Although Luther had some help (Calvin, Zwingli, Hus etc.) he was a major player, whereas Hitler was pretty much at the head of his operation. But then again I would consider a holocaust of souls far more serious than a holocaust of the flesh. So it's a tough call. Luther by himself probably wasn't any worse than Hitler, but in combination with the other protestant reformers I'd say they are worse. Not to mention Luther was a blatant racist, so that's another problem.

Or maybe its a better comparison to consider their causes: the Holocaust vs. the Protestant Reformation. I personally consider the Reformation as a whole to be worse than the Holocaust as a whole. Whether that makes Luther as an individual worse than Hitler I can't really say.

again, don't take my statements as the belief of PM. No need to go and call Phatmass unecumenical just because I am . I have a big red ! under my name for a reason

Edited September 10, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1652105' date='Sep 10 2008, 02:16 AM']So can you name a protestant that didn't go to heaven? Or one that was not in Christ's Church when they died?[/quote]
I am not capable of seeing the particular judgement of individuals... I have made that clear over and over and over agian. I can however tell you that failing to be a member of the Catholic Church, unless you are ignorant through no fault of your own will prevent you from attaining heaven. This has been revealed to us, by God through the Church. Similarly I can tell you that dying in mortal sin will prevent you from attaining heaven, but I do not presume to know either who is in mortal sin or who, individually is ignorant through no fault of this own.

[Don John of Austria]

JNow I must be at work much to close to now... I will have to continue later.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651754' date='Sep 9 2008, 06:50 PM']ya me to....
Golden Child made some comment like don jonn made in the catholics are better thread and father pontifex called him out on it and asked him why even post at phatmass ?? don john then went on to disagree with pontifex and side with golden child....again, it was on the topic about no protestant in the western world being repentent or really loveing God....

another statement from him on that thread : " Your Lutherian friends may indeed go to Heaven, for that matter, Hitler may have as well, that we do not know. "[/quote]

note that I am definitely not known for popular statements here . I am not considered Catholic or any such thing. So you need to consider that when reading my posts. My beliefs can be considered extreme by many, but I don't mean anything personal by them.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1652080' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:16 AM']Edit: The quote actually doesn't use the words "believe" it uses the word "aware". Go reread it.[/quote]

I am unsure how one can be "aware" of something without believing it to be true. If they don't believe it is true, they cannot be aware that it is true.

[Winchester]

There is no salvation but through Christ. Kali cannot save you. Nor can Luther. Nor, for that matter, can the pope. Those who attain heaven do so only by way of Jesus's death. Whether you were apparently a member of the Catholic Church (which is the vehicle Christ Himself established through which we attain the salvation He secured for us through His death) or not.

There is one way.

Invincible ignorance cannot mean simply knowledge. We are not gnostics. Knowledge is not enough. I here use knowledge as simply awareness. Most people are aware of the claims of Christ. But there are human defects in intellect caused by our fallen nature that might prevent us from accepting intellectually the claims of Christ. It is not up to us to judge those who are invincibly ignorant. It is not up to us to assume our friends who are not ordinary members of the Church will be saved. We must spread the word and we must try to convert people. It is a difficult task to explain these things and with the wrong words, you can fall to either side. Rejection of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The stupid are not going to Hell. Acceptance of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The brilliant are not all assured heaven.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652110' date='Sep 10 2008, 02:24 AM']JNow I must be at work much to close to now... I will have to continue later.[/quote]
Wow it was indeed too late. Lol

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1652114' date='Sep 10 2008, 02:55 AM']I am unsure how one can be "aware" of something without believing it to be true. If they don't believe it is true, they cannot be aware that it is true.[/quote]



You don't know about willful ignorance?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1652130' date='Sep 10 2008, 05:45 AM']There is no salvation but through Christ. Kali cannot save you. Nor can Luther. Nor, for that matter, can the pope. Those who attain heaven do so only by way of Jesus's death. Whether you were apparently a member of the Catholic Church (which is the vehicle Christ Himself established through which we attain the salvation He secured for us through His death) or not.

There is one way.

Invincible ignorance cannot mean simply knowledge. We are not gnostics. Knowledge is not enough. I here use knowledge as simply awareness. Most people are aware of the claims of Christ. But there are human defects in intellect caused by our fallen nature that might prevent us from accepting intellectually the claims of Christ. It is not up to us to judge those who are invincibly ignorant. It is not up to us to assume our friends who are not ordinary members of the Church will be saved. We must spread the word and we must try to convert people. It is a difficult task to explain these things and with the wrong words, you can fall to either side. Rejection of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The stupid are not going to Hell. Acceptance of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The brilliant are not all assured heaven.[/quote]


Agreed on all counts, but the intellect certianly plays a role. That said I think the stupid are much more likly to attain heaven than the Brilliant as they are more likely to truely be " invincibly ignorant"

[rkwright]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652109' date='Sep 10 2008, 01:23 AM']I am not capable of seeing the particular judgement of individuals... I have made that clear over and over and over agian. I can however tell you that failing to be a member of the Catholic Church, unless you are ignorant through no fault of your own will prevent you from attaining heaven. This has been revealed to us, by God through the Church. Similarly I can tell you that dying in mortal sin will prevent you from attaining heaven, but I do not presume to know either who is in mortal sin or who, individually is ignorant through no fault of this own.[/quote]

My point is there is no point in arguing over it because when it actually comes to practical terms no one can know what ignorant actually means.

We can only see some of Christ's Church, but we do not know the extent of His Church.

To claim that Luther or the protestants are in hell (you said what is worse, Hitler physically killing people or Luther eternally killing people) is wrong.

We know that without a doubt Hitler caused more physical death's than Luther. You may have an opinion that Luther has caused spiritual deaths, but judging souls is a role I'll leave for God.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652156' date='Sep 10 2008, 07:52 AM']You don't know about willful ignorance?[/quote]

I do, but I don't think it applies here. I think the only way one can be willfully ignorant is if they have been shown something and understand it, but reject it because it isn't what they want to hear, or convince themselves that it must not be true because it isn't what they want to hear... whereas with Catholicism, most people aren't even aware of what the Catholic church actually teaches because of misdirection and misinformation that they have been subjected to.

Think of Oedipus Rex. We just did lecture/class discussion on this in my class the other day with Dr. Holmes. A lot of people read that and they think, "HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW???" at several different points in the book. Some have argued he was in denial--even Freud argued that(but that was probably because Freud wanted to believe that because it supported his wacky claims on sons wanting to sleep with their mothers)--but others have argued, and have a more logical standing, that it was misdirection and misinformation that made him blind to the truth, which seems more probable.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652070' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:02 AM']I don't even think a real response is needed here. Go back and read what you said..... what exactly could posibly be MORE evil than starting your own religion... unless you are going to tell me that physical death is worse than Spiritual--- Eternal Death. And by the by, Luther hated Jews, I mean he HATED them. I think you all should go find some contempary sources on the reformation and see what actually happened in 16th century Germany when Luther decided he knew more than Christ about founding a Church.[/quote]
What I find interesting about Luther is that he consistently in his writings seems to see himself as still working inside the Church for reform, rather than as a revolutionary instituting a new religion.

He was very passionate, and I believe he was sincere in his efforts to understand truth, although he clearly lacked humility. I think he was scrupulous too ... there is evidence that he never felt his sins were completely forgiven, and was compelled at times to re-enter the confessional immediately after leaving it. This is one of the things that led him to question the way Catholic teaching addressed sinfulness.

I think it is important to keep in mind that many of the abuses that Luther addressed WERE abuses. The papacy was not in a good place at that time. Luther's actions were perhaps not in certain places well-advised, but you also have to keep in mind that there were other forces operating within the church that contributed to decay in certain areas. Luther's actions alone were not enough to cause the damage that resulted; he (I think unwittingly) hit at very soft, vulnerable spots in the church, and his blows caused far more damage than he could have anticipated.

If you must demonize a reformer, I think Calvin is a much better candidate than Luther.