Martin Luther on Early Church Martyrdom
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Martin Luther on Early Church Martyrdom file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Martin Luther on Early Church Martyrdom book.
Happy reading Martin Luther on Early Church Martyrdom Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Martin Luther on Early Church Martyrdom at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Martin Luther on Early Church Martyrdom Pocket Guide.
- Top Navigation.
- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of Martin Luther.
- Comments (183).
- Origins of Protestantism.
- Top Navigation.
- To Speak of Jesus Is to Speak of Martyrdom;
I am not prescribing it must be used that way, nor am I suggesting the first use is invalid or in any way inferior. I am saying one is used more than the other. In my opinion, the first use is more common than the second. Am I now dictating how people use the word? PS As any linguist will tell you, a language is defined by usage. There are no "written rules". It's not a sensible way to roll, but it's yours.
And yes, you are dictating the meaning of the word. It's okay, we all do it every time we use words. Your crime was actually asserting it's interpretation in a way that - lets face it - is completely absurd. It's not the case that anyone upon hearing the word would be completely divorced from the religious interpretation.
Really and truly tab. Really and truly. Am I dictating a meaning of a word or simply reflecting the biases of the english-language speaking public? Beats me - how about you walk out on the street and ask 10 people if the word "martyr" has any religious connotation in their mind? Get back to me when you've done that, my answers were "yes", 10 times. Oh, and tab: any linguist will tell you, a dictionary should and the OED does , simply keep track of usages, it doesn't distinguish which is the more common, nor the validity of its acceptance.
Go butt heads elsewhere, the dull wet slap is bothering me. As has been said, parliaments are filled with old men who are well aware of their own mortality, sending young men oblivious to their own mortality off to go and die. Unfortunately the Bible condones almost every type of belief. Eye for an eye? Turn the other cheek? Yep People who say they are Christians have been going to war with Jews, Muslims, witches, aborigines and anyone who has what they want, for a very long time.
It muddies the water hugely about what the Bible actually stands for. How many Christians were in the US gunship that hovered above the MSF hospital a week ago and killed the people fleeing the bombs they were dropping? Does any religion condone this type of behaviour? Would the gunners have been martyrs if they had been shot down and killed?
Harvey, That's an impressive display of ignorance you can put up when you try! Snatching proof-texts out of context is not the same as understanding. Read the Boast of Lamech in Genesis for a comparison or google it! But even so, Christians are children of their times too. People who say they are anything are all prone to opinions and attitudes that went unquestioned in their time, but we abhor now. It was Christians who stopped roasting virgins on the solistice, not the pagans!
Christians in that gunship? I don't know. But from what I know about military operations, all of them probably believed that they were attacking a legitimate target of war. Armies other than those commanded by psychopaths don't waste men and resources merely to create opposition to their own aims. But you will always get psychopaths or misfits or the just plain deluded who use religion to justify their crimes, just like the CIA does even nastier things in the name of 'Freedom'. Even Hamburg, Dresden and Hiroshima were bombed by patriots doing their duty. Such a pity that so many needless deaths did not one ounce towards shortening the war.
But I don't condemn the airmen for doing what they thought was their duty, even at their own peril. Go back and actually read the article this time. It is about people who DON'T attempt to harm others, but are killed anyway. So get off your anti-religious treadmill and start working from REAL data, not just the snippets you have cherry-picked and then mis-represented! But for argument sake, let's say none of them were Christians unlikely in the US.
They would still have had some kind of interaction with padres and ministers attached to the military that bring their prefabricated places of worship with them on campaign, where they exhort the virtues of just war and justify warfare with appropriate texts. There's many a commentator on this site that holds every Muslim to be accountable for the actions of some, so why not hold Christianity to the same standard and blame everyone? Or does that stick only point in one direction? As for killing strangers for a living just because a corrupt government says so is another issue altogether.
Dove, You are assuming that the crew of the gunship knew what they were attacking. In fact, they were probably operating under the belief that their target was a headquarters or some other military target. Stuff-ups like that happen in war! And Americans above all are known for 'friendly fire' incidents because they shoot first and check later. Blame the American military doctrine and the military leadership that perpetuates it, not the soldiers.
And I DON'T hold every Muslim accountable for the actions of psychopaths who appropriate that faith as a cover for their evil. I have a good working knowledge of Islam, and I know that these jihadis are the muslim equivalent to doomsday cultists in Christian traditions. The aircrew may well have thought that they were attacking enemy GHQ. That doesn't matter, because military personnel kill whoever they're told to kill.
You leave your own judgement, discretion and morality at the door when you don the uniform. Innocents killed will be called collateral damage to ease consciences. In fact, that's what the padres are there for- to help make sense and justification of the slaughter so that troops can go back out and do it again tomorrow. If we weren't so good at convincing young men to go off and play the ultimate online game then they'd be no soldiers for the politicians to deploy. Guns don't kill, we're told, people kill.
To exonerate the very people pulling the trigger and to absolve them of blame is, IMHO, deceptive. I had a giggle at ""Eye for an eye" actually LIMITS the revenge that can be taken" of course, fistly that's your own view, which is arbitrary indefensible and based on what you know to be an intelligent set of morals that you've already learned from your society sorry, christianity came on the scene as a rather late player in the game of religious morality , Secondly, you've simply supplanted one ad hoc interpretation of a vague biblical text with your own.
When you can demonstrate your interpretation of the bible is correct, we'll all convert to exactly the kind of christianity you can prove to be true. Until then, you have nothing but your own hand waving as a basis for argument. In a world with no police, no thousands of pages of legislation, enforcing justice was largely a family or tribal matter. It was important that disputes not escalate. Most societies had similar rules. The Romans had the Lex Talionis, the law of retaliation. That you choose for your own reasons to believe otherwise is up to you.
But you cannot claim that your view is the majority. BTW- the entire quote is "You have heard what the law says: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not fight back against the wrong doer, but turn the other cheek" Matt. Actually tab, I was replying to sleepykarly.
Secondly, the fact remains that the content of the bible is interpreted, and interpreted differently, by different sects. Thirdly, you have no idea what my belief is, or if I even have one - here's a tip; I dont. Or maybe you mean "universal except a heck of a lot of people over the last years". I dont know - you're not making a whole lot of sense. Bonzono, We can play post-modernist 'my truth is mine, your truth is yours' games all you want, if that's how you prefer to live. And I have no problem with that. But has it occurred to you that the best way of determining what a 'vague Biblical text' means is to start by actually reading it?
Or is that too much like hard work? Or you already know that 'meaning' is meaningless? And by extension, why do you take the effort to post anything, if it's just 'your interpretation' and no-body's interpretation is any better than anyone else's? I don't intend to 'demonstrate' anything to someone who prefers not to know. Others, who have thought through the matter and come to a different conclusion from mine, are always welcome to have a glass of white and we chat, so we can learn from each others' perspectives; I'm still learning.
But I seem to learn more from people who understand the material than from the ignorant. When you want to understand, you can go do the research too. There are plenty of books that can help you, and people who will explain things, often free of charge. But then, people who actually know what they are talking about are only talking about 'their view', so what use would that be to you?
Thanks karly, and yes I have read the bible. Quite a lot actually, and yes, I even grew up reading it. I know it quite well. Or are you next going to admit you have nothing at all to "demonstrate" that does actually appear as a factual snippet of sanity? Isn't it convenient then, that you pretend you dont want to? Karly - when you have a defensible, sane and justifiable claim that stands up to common sense, we'll talk.
Until then, the only escape you have available is that you pretend you "dont want to". Isn't it handy you, that you can faux-indignation your way out of onus probandi? The rest of us have reasonable expectations that you show what you're talking about stands up to more than hand waving and fuzzy feelings. Martyrs die for insanity, not for intelligent defensible reason. Bonzono, My 'position' that you ridiculed is that 'an eye for an eye' was intended to limit retaliation, not justify it.
Tabanus above has put up a good statement of that already, so I'll acknowledge his effort rather than repeat it. Meanwhile, what have you said by way of a logical case to demonstrate that my position is indefensible? Only that you 'giggle' at it. Hardly persuasive unless already convinced. Meanwhile, 'knowing' something is not the same as understanding it, and it is a long, long way from accurately representing it.
Methinks that your unbelief is more important to you than a reasonable examination of the topic. As I said before, I often learn from those who have thought more deeply. Do you? Like I said, I'm all ears if you can defensibly demonstrate your god is actually fact. Your position is indefensible, because you, along with any other religious person for the last - oh , years? Since this - or something very like it, depending on your arbitrary adoption of whatever sect is the flavour of the year, is what you propose is the case.
Knowing something is indeed, distinct from understanding it. Yes, I learn from others - one of them is issac newton, from whom we learned that lead fumes are toxic, things move in a straight line unless you bump them, and that differential calculus is hard. We didn't learn anything about god from him, or any other scientist who claimed to have a religious bent. In fact, we learnd nothing at all scientific, about god, from anyone at all. I'm happy if you can demonstrate anything scientific we've learned from any god, and if you can defensibly justify your assertion that a god, or gods were involved in any creation at all, at any time.
Dear Harvey As I asked above - did you read the article? It is not about soldiers, and not really about Christianity. It is about feeling so strongly about morality that to break that moral conviction is unthinkable, that death is preferable. Can you not put down what appears to be an irrational hatred of Christianity and the USA for a moment to discuss something in a sensible manner?
PS Gunships do not carry bombs. And, as has been clear from the beginning, the US attacked the hospital as it had reports that ground troops were coming under fire from that area. I note that Medicins sans Frontieres have never denied that this was taking place, or not in any of the reports that I have heard or read. They merely say that the location of the hospital was known and that calls were made to call off the attack.
One only has to look at the Palestinian use of hospitals as bases and ambulances to move fighters to see that this is a fairly common occurrence. Only the West tries to keep to the rules. The coordinator reported that the KTC was calm, with no armed combatants present, nor any fighting on the hospital grounds or within the audible vicinity. That its guards "saw nothing" is fine: who are these guards? Given that the hospital only operated with the permission of the Taliban, could it be that their guards were not entirely reliable? Or, as has happened before, health workers have turned a blind eye on the basis that one must be prepared to accept some compromise in order to help the sick?
Hospital employees in Gaza routinely claimed their hospital was free of Palestinian fighters, even when Hamas was holding news briefings in the building. They claimed they were not aware of the presence, thinking the armed men were "guards". Even the UN accepts that hospitals and mosques are used to store weapons and ammunition and to provide "safe houses". The Afghan Defence Force and the police both claim that about a dozen Taliban were firing from the hospital. So we have conflicting reports, leading to at least two scenarios.
One, Afghan forces come under fire from the hospital, the US forces are asked for assistance and send a gunship, with some breakdown not unknown in the heat of combat leading to the hospital being attacked for about 30 mins. An officer screaming that his men are being killed might lend some urgency to decision making. Or, having carefully identified the hospital, set up intense protocols to avoid collateral damage to the extent of having lawyers check targets , the US decided "Bugger it, let's hit a hospital and see how many people we can kill".
You have made your mind up, and so have I. PS The use of "cowardly" in the initial sentence does suggest a lack of objectivity. Tabanus, you should read and hear more. The MSF have indeed denied there were enemy combatants anywhere in or near the hospital and it has been confirmed that it was a very quiet night with no fighting in the area at all.
Dear Desert Woman MSF has other facilities in the region under Taliban control, and many employees who could be targeted by the Taliban. Not by accident but deliberately. Your faith in their objectivity is touching. And what I read said that nothing "major" was occurring. Maybe just a dozen men sniping at Afghan units? Who call a gunship to blast a building being used as cover?
Tabanus, my faith in their objectivity is supported by the reports of others who are not partisans. While your claims against MSF are supported by what? I am merely balancing two contrary reports. As part of that, one must evaluate objectivity and influence. Do you believe that MSF would not be targeted if it said "Yes, we only operated the hospital with permission of the Taliban and we had no control over what they did. The guards are actually provided by the Taliban and we have no idea whether they are telling the truth.
We don't care: it was the only way we could get permission.
Introduction: From Persecution to Empire
Maybe they and the Taliban patients were treating did fire at the Afghan army. But we are going to blame the US as that will not only generate publicity which will increase donations, but they will not harm us or take revenge". I am not claiming that is the truth, but is has as much validity as bloodthirsty US soldiers wanting to blow up innocent doctors for fun.
Tabanus, you seem to forget that the US finally apologized for their terrible mistake. Do you honestly believe these gallant warriors from the land of the brave would have apologized if there was any shred of evidence that MSF harboured combatants or in any way breached the ethics of their profession? The answer is 'no, they would not have apologized at all but battled it out'. They would never have attacked the hospital had a mistake not been made. The USA always apologises when it kills innocents. It often apologises when it kills its enemies. Unlike its enemies, who proudly announce the murder of civilians, and in fact target them constantly.
Thanks Tabanus, I am pleased you have finally conceded the MSF was not harbouring the enemy or breaching its ethics. But the US military have now changed their story 4 times, so which particular version do you mean? MSF says the vicinity was quiet. No gun noise. No bullet noise. No noise. Read it yourself. I think their major and unforgivable crime has been to treat all combatants equally.
They ask that all insignias of partisanship be removed from patients and no guns are allowed in the hospital. They are truly being christian, and those who died are truly martyrs according to Jensen. My personal opinion? Those aboard the plane were no different from the Nazi monsters who murdered 6 million defenceless Jews. Just following orders, Sah! Harvey, people seem to take "an eye for an eye" out of context. This instruction was directed specifically to the judicial system of Israel; judges were to try to ensure the punishment fitted the crime, so individuals would be less inclined to seek revenge outside the judicial system.
Individuals were not to seek revenge. Acts of revenge that caused harm to others were prohibited and are still prohibited in the secular laws of most western democracies. You first Michael. Off you go to Syria and put your life on the line for those in danger. Even stick with Christians being persecuted. Why not try; North Korea. Or maybe just sit in the hell hole of Darling Point and preach. By the way, lose the poor Jesus stuff. If he truly was the son of God, or God himself, take your pic, he knew this was prearranged by dad, or himself, and afterwards would take his seat back up in the clouds.
Big Deal. I wonder how many "martyrs" have made that decision, based on the preachings of someone like the Jensens. The religious equivalent of "armchair warriors". I could tell you of numbers of my friends and former students who are working in the middle east and in North Africa right at this minute, and in dangerous circumstances. Martyrdom is stupid and self centred. Nothing is worth dying for. I would die trying to save those I love, but not for its own sake. Suicide bombers, self-immolators and those who sacrifice themselves to punctuate an ideology are deluded. Martyrs are not those who set out to die, but those who die trying to achieve something noble.
If you set out to be a martyr then you have failed to be one. Religion is the least respectable reason to waste your existence. You might as well give your life to protect the legend of Barbie. You contradict yourself in your first para "Nothing is worth dying for. I would die trying to save those I love So, something are worth dying for obviously.
I think you mean you wouldn't do it unless you had a stark choice - not for the ideal of the thing. Good thing most don't think like you, as our society would be a lot worse off. Think of military personnel who do the same. Think of medical staff working with infectious diseases - think of explorers various. Yep - your world view, if generalised, would lead to a very impoverished and selfish world where people like yourself would be forced to make the hard choices instead of being shielded from them by others who have some spine.
That is a nonsense argument and you know it. No policeman takes the job expecting to die as a cost of the role. Nor doctors nor explorers: they do what they do for the reward - psychological, professional, financial and social. Sure they may act courageously and often they may act without courage, but they are no more reckless with their mortality than you or I, they simply make a different calculation. Our society would be a lot better off if people valued life a lot more than they do now. IS would not be a threat if they believed in life like I do rather than the nobility of death like you appear to believe.
Death is a loser's game. A religious game. A Christian martyr takes a risk, but does not suicide. They are aware they may die for what they believe, but would rather live. Just like a cop etc. I believe life is sacred - so sacred I would die to protect it.
Cops think the same or similar. They do not seek death like IS, but they will not avoid it either, as life and freedom, an ideal, can only be preserved by taking such a stand, who would use the death of others and not their own as the ultimate bargaining chip. Face it, your freedom to be self preserving has been bought with the blood of others, and is paid for daily by others who, thankfully, see death as a sacrifice worth making for people like you.
Face it, your freedom to be self preserving has been bought with the blood of others Unless you're referring to the freedoms represented by people who were murdered by the spanish inquisition, which is rather an argument against religion. They do not seek death like IS, but they will not avoid it either" Cops will not avoid death? I think all that religious mumbo-jumbo has gone to your head. Avoiding death is what human beings have primarily evolved to do. No police officer will court death, or fail to take every action necessary to avoid death.
Some people consciously take jobs that expose them to dangers, but this does not mean they are reckless with their lives nor does it mean they fail to take all precautions to ensure their safety. Please, they volunteer their time and expertise to go into what they know is a very dangerous situation because they believe very strongly in the value of human life and they want to preserve it as much as possible, notwithstanding they know that they may be killed in the process. They want to help the helpless. That's why the true Martyrs are the ones who have been killed because they refused to renounce their faith, not because they were aggressors in a conflict.
Martin Luther King is a Martyr for the cause of racial equality, he didn't set out to be a Martyr but he became one because he refused to renounce his belief in the equality of all human beings. I disagree any MSF doctor is a martyr. Martyrdom is a religious idea based on the afterlife - MSF doctors are courageous and even heroic, but if they get killed pursuing their vocation it is not through martyrdom or through any lack of concern for their own safety.
No policeman takes the job expecting to die as a cost of the role - but it is something everyone of them should consider before they put on the uniform Our society would be a lot better off if people valued life a lot more than they do now - if they valued all life equally, yes. Just a thought for you jay. If people valued life less than they do now, then the fact that people die wouldn't matter much at all. The impact of martyrs would be very much reduced, or negligible.
There's one way that people can become indifferent to the suffering and death of others: dehumanise them. Christianity is good at that, as is Islam: heathens, infidels, apostates - they're not really human and can therefore be dispatched without concern. Brave New World was a secular dystopia with differences in biological class used to distance people from their humanity.
No Alpha much cared for the death of a few Epsilons. I didn't really see much concern when 80, brown people died in an earthquake in Pakistan in , but that same year we couldn't have heard more about a few white people who died on the London Underground. We already live in a kind of brave new world. Guess who the epsilons are? Imagine if that earthquake had happened in Los Angeles rather than Kashmir - we would still be hearing about it and be commemorating the anniversary solemnly every year for the next years.
As it is I'll bet you don't even remember the Pakistan earthquake of October that killed 80K people and displaced 3. Did you take a minute's silence on the 8th to mark the tenth anniversary? So, the secular media is an example of religious dehumanisation? Really MTB - you should not let your hatred of the religious cloud your judgement so much. Concur the deaths of "brown people" doesn't register for many, but our media and nation is secular. Most of the agencies that assisted were religious. Cops and soldiers don't avoid death, but don't seek it either.
The difference is placing yourself in harms way for others. They don't think "there's a chance I might die. Best stay behind with MTB and his crowd where it is safe and warm". They think "best stand up and protect MTB and his crowd even though I might die". MY comment was simply making the point that martyrs are a product of the way we value life. If we didn't value it, then of course, a martyr wouldn't matter.
I was just throwing that one in as a point -then offhandedly connected it to BNW - where mitor rightly pointed out that we're already there - the implication is that martyrs would still exist in a brave new world, but not between sociological levels - i. Mitor's point is, we're already in a brave new world. Since you dont know the book, I suggest you read it. It's lovely and horrifying all at the same time.
Make sure you dont leave the dome when you pick up a copy of the book. It's scary in the real world Now, what your post has to do with that is beyond me, but then again, I didn't read it too hard - cos; you epsilons just stick to what you're doing and leave the rest of us to get on with it , okay? Whether it is your version of martyrdom or theirs, the result is still the same for the individual.
They are convinced that they are trading this life for eternal glory in the next. Why is this current batch of violent martyrs any different from the Christians who were prepared to die "reclaiming" the Holy Land or killing heretics? Answer: There is no difference, except perhaps the era. Implying that Christianity has only had a pacifist tradition of martyrdom is just selective blindness; and really does nothing to contribute to understanding and reducing the problem. Being led by a "higher ideal", whatever we have been convinced that is, is part of human nature.
Our only hope of reducing the destructive impacts of that is to understand how people get convinced and under what circumstances; and address that. The fact is that people can be convinced of nearly anything if the conditions are right. Heck, we have even seen the creation of religions themselves, even in modern times - Scientology created by a Science Fiction writer as just one example. Pratchett has an interesting take on this. The wee mac feagles in this life are dead, that is, they are in hell and once they die here, they go to their proper life.
Not sure I'm explaining this well enough, but the parallel is that some religions see this life as a trial, as a half way point to see where they end up next, as their existence continues. Not reincarnation, which indicates a cycle but a reward for deeds in this life Not sure what you get in some religions if you just live your life peacefully and raise a family or some other "mundane" non-exciting existence, but there is certainly a wind up to be a "martyr" to gain benefits It does sound a bit greed driven and not so much virtue driven, but that's just my opinion.
I disagree. I do not fear a suicide bomber, although I am sure whoever wants to make us fearful will thank Dr Jensen for giving authority to the disenfranchised person in our society who thinks that mass murder and suicide is a viable path to a better future for humanity. Everyone sees the world through individual filters, but really Dr Jensen, trying to put a religious spin on this issue of suicide bombers, is just just perpetuating the reasons why suicide bombers exist.
Religious leaders again offering simplistic answers for complex problems. Actually isn't that how this whole thing started-religious leaders making promises that are undeliverable? It is significant that suicide bombers are mainly young and mainly male-look around you, it is not easy for many young men growing up in Australia, how much harder is it for those boys who are not advantaged with good circumstances?
Oops someone at the door offering me everlasting life, via a Christian God, so I am good to go. Agree with you. Suicide bomber casualties in Australia are low. We are all more likely to die in a car accident, domestic violence, flu, shark attack, cancer, heart disease and numerous other things list not in order of severity People should get some perspective.
Terror is the least of our worries. If government wasn't pushing the issue for political game it would be a non-event. Publicising it makes more malcontents think about it. Now that is REAL. The reasons suicide bombers do what they do is understood. That does not however excuse their actions as you have attempted to do.
Dear anurse Have you ever wondered why there are so few Christian suicide bombers? It is because I doubt that you would find a single mainstream church that does not consider it a sin. Other religions may glorify those who kill in the name of their God, and hundreds of years ago some Christians felt this way. Definitely not all: the issue of whether a Christian can ever kill has been a central question of Christianity since it began. There are many, many theologians who have debated this, and it was quite common for Popes to excommunicate those who started wars. I am glad you do not fear suicide bombers.
Others, those riding a train in London or a bus in Israel may not enjoy your relaxed life. PS I find your claim that Dr Jensen is putting a "religious spin" n suicide bombing incomprehensible. Do you expect him to ignore that these murderers are called "martyrs", cheapening the sacrifice that many made rather than become murderers themselves? Definitely not all:" If you are implying that everyone in another religion, let's not be coy, Islam, does glorify war, then that is just unsupportable and untrue.
If you are implying that there are Christians in modern times that do not glorify those that killed "heretics", then I suggest you are either being disingenuous, or ignorant of the facts. I saw the aftermath one one bombing in the Underground, when there was smoke started streaming out of the station I was attempting to enter. I also had to report an abandoned bag on the train I was on - turned out to be owned by an employee of the Underground!
Terrorism only works if it instills terror, and that was not the case in London. Life went on, people read their papers, ignored others or laughed and joked on the trains, just like before. For perspective, in Australia, one only has to look at the Road Toll and deaths by Domestic Violence and Alcohol Abuse to see that death by Terrorism is way, way down the list of things that are likely to kill us. To quote from Dune by Frank Herbert ; "I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain. You have so completely mis-represented Dr Jensen's article that I can only conclude that you have not even read it. Suggest you go back and start again. Heller just sarcastically played on the words of Zapata, that originally were: "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees". Zapata was obviously contrasting the choice between the warrior vs the slave attitude. Interestingly, Heller's "Better to live on your feet than die on your knees" can be also interpreted in the same way: Live on your feet to march to battle vs. But was Heller really being sarcastic?
Did he bungled the sarcasm? Or did he just forget the actual words from Zapata and made them up with an apparently similar meaning? Or was Heller's intention that of keeping the reader speculating into the future about what the hell he intended to say? As a general principle, it seems to be that the more fanatical you are about something anything, not just religion , the more likely you are to abandon your traditional moral compass in its pursuit. Suicide bombers are just one example of this.
Athletes who take drugs have become so hooked on the idea of winning and success that the thoughts most of us would have of the win being hollow because they cheated don't come into their heads. Narcissists are so obsessed with themselves that they are willing to manipulate and hurt others in order to accomplish their own gratification.
If this general principle is true, then the Bible's warnings about worshipping idols would make sense. Because the moment you raise any single concept God or anything else above all others and attach great value to it, that concept can become the justification for committing evils. On the same basis, you could consider the worshiping of God, as is practiced by religions around the world, to be a form of idolatry.
Each individual who partakes in worship will have their own conception of God. The fact that the God that they conceive has no physical form is irrelevant. God is still a concept within their heads to which they attach great value and therefore forms a justification for the abandonment of moral principles.
How many wars down the ages have been fought in God's name? If, for the sake of argument, there is a God and he is omnipotent and omnipresent, then he will also be beyond our conception. Any concept we have of him will be incorrect and worshipping that concept will be an act of idolatry.
Perhaps Christians should adopt the Buddhist saying: "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him". You can die for your faith in the battlefield, but oops, if you die for your faith in a battlefield it's because you were trying to kill for your faith. Dying for your faith and killing for your faith can indeed be indistinguishable The crusaders dying in the Holy Land to free Jerusalem were also martyrs of the "true faith", but they didn't turn any other cheek to anyone. Life is a gift and I don't believe that anyone has the right to deliberately kill members of a population, thereby taking on the role of a god.
If someone wants to kill themself on a matter of principle, I guess it is their choice. To take someone else with them is a matter of savagery. I agree with your comments, Alpo. You're wrong again, Alpo. The crusades were sparked by the actions of the Muslims in Jerusalem.
The city was, for centuries, peacefully occupied by Jews, Christians and Muslims. But the Muslims unilaterally declared Jerusalem to be a Muslim city and slaughtered over 3, Christians, defiled the corpses and left them on the steps to the churches. In response, the first crusade was launched. All the crusaders wanted was to re-establish access to Jerusalem and the holy sites for Christians.
They did not start any wars. They did not slaughter any Muslims and they did not martyr themselves. To the contrary, they went to extreme lengths in many instances to avoid contact and conflict with the Muslim residents - turning the other cheek, as you put it.. John, you are describing your fantasy account of the crusades in the same way Coalition of the Willing propagandists described their intervention in Iraq, with delusional pinpoint-accuracy of bomb-dropping to avoid unnecessary civilian damage and all.
Nice example of contextual transfer of right-wing propagandistic ploys. Yeah, "turning the other cheek" indeed Alpo, you continue to be wrong by ignoring the historical truth. The Crusaders did not engage in warfare with the Muslims. What they attempted to do was gain access to the sites that here holy to Christians but from which they were barred by the Muslim forces. When attempting to enter those sacred sites they were attacked, and fought back.
They did not engage in religious warfare. They did not instigate conflict. Yes, they did defend themselves when attacked. There are many, many, contemporary accounts of the First and Second Crusades, written by religious, lay and military people. It would benefit you to read some of them. Oh yeah, but some times your "good" is my "evil" If you want to use an example of someone who stood up to Hitler why not also use the example Hitler himself, isn't that what he considered himself to be doing, giving his life for something he believed in?
Martin Luther King, wasn't he aware of the probability of his own death, wasn't he threatened? Wasn't Dickens a novelist and his character fictional? Don't a lot of people take on martyrdom because they have been threatened? Is there some reason Gandhi is a saint and not a leader of a political group?
Are you going to mention the Kennedys? Are these deaths of which you speak ultimate sacrifices, or are they assassinations on one side, a tempting of fate or a refusal to yield to threat on the other. Rather than an ideal or an example for our young people to follow. Are you just a little bit equating being targeted and refusing to accept that with some kind of fatalistic powerless "sainthood"?
I would disagree with that. One does not usually understand the consequences of resistance until one is very far down the track. So it isn't sainthood that would make a man, a man, a man - as you point out - do that. It's a sense of inevitability and a refusal to move back from a threat. More often that that it's because it's too late, moving back isn't going to change anything. The only good reason I can see for the church to have embraced martyrdom is that martyrs were doing the Good Lord's work for them. Work a little harder for change, you Men of Church.
Bev, A subtle difference that you might not have noticed, but is actually the core of the article. Bonhoeffer died for his faith, while trying to harm no-one. Hitler killed millions for his faith, while trying to protect his own arse. Can you see the difference now? Hitler did not die a martyr he committed suicide when he Knew all was lost and if captured by the Allies he would be held responsible for the death of millions.
All those silly German peoples, you know, the ones who survived it anyway, after it was all over they awoke sleepily and rubbed their eyes and looked around them and said: How did I get here? How do I work this? This is not my beautiful house! Where does that highway go? Am I right? Am I wrong? No, in fact the Germans more likely woke up and realized they'd been part of a big machine and the cogs, the mechanisms, were the government and the civil service and the religions and the social mechanisms themselves.
So how does one go from being a huge war machine back to being an economic mechanism. How does one adjust to that, how does one distance oneself from that. I suppose if it helps one would say oh yes, he was just some madman, some martyr, some messiah, nothing to do with me. Men of Church, they talk about these things as if they are aberrations, and yet without their help the big German thing, where they killed millions of their own people and allowed many millions of their own people to die likely would not have happened.
Who was it that came up with the idea that those people would be a group, a particular group, who would be described as not German, now that I would like to know. A large population developing an aggressive aversion to a small group, we have seen that in the making. But I also do know that aversions to groups of others have reasons, they do.
That is a very natural thing. And there will be those on either side who will become so distanced from their selves that they can contemplate such an act of self-annihilation. A man flies a small aeroplane into the side of a government office - seemingly on behalf of someone else. A young woman makes a pop video, and that video is inciteful but it is the company, not the girl nor the music with the agenda. It's a weird and complicated topic, how come yous all seem so stuck on one reading of it? Jensen does not know, or chooses not to know, that Tanweer was an unwitting stooge who was in a drill "that went live".
Perhaps a light should be shed on those who preach and encourage self destruction among the young but who do not put their own lives at risk. It seems to me whether the person is a politician or a religious leader in places of worship, they all have one thing in common. They use their considerable power and influence to first convince the people generally and then the young and able bodied but easily swayed that there are rewards in sacrificing their lives for the greater good or in some cases personal rewards of a promised utopia after death.
Putting aside those who as adults choose to devote and sometimes risk their lives to make a career in the armed forces or seek martyrdom by choosing to enter into armed conflict in the name of religious ideology, it seems many, who in fact violently kill themselves and other innocent bystanders are more often than not recruited deliberately for that purpose.
While some political leaders may in fact be reluctantly forced to commit armed forces in defence of their people and way of life, there are also those who relish the idea of being seen as a strong leader while leading from the rear. Jensen claims that martyrdom has "become in the general cultural mindset the same thing as suicide bombing" is extraordinary. Nor is sacrificing one's life in furtherance of an irrational superstitious belief superior to doing so for any noble cause.
Losing one's life fighting a life and death battle is no less worthy than being nailed to a cross. Thanks Michael for your very interesting insight which for me has restored some trust in religion. My belief these days is that we tend to take religion and life too seriously; we came from nothing and return to nothing. This gives me hope that one day I will find real peace and that is being freed from myself..!demo-new.nplan.io/cartas-de-relacin-de-hernn-corts.php
Biography of Tertullian, Father of Latin Theology
Because we come from nothing and return to nothing, NOW is the only time and the only chance for "Something" Well that's my take on it unless someone can explain the meaning of life. I like Stephen Hawking's attitude that the universe came into existence without a divine creator. That suggests to me there is no particular purpose unless one wants to prescribe a purpose for themself. Is it just me, or did anyone else find the change of the gender of the subject in this article disconcerting.
Michael, your main point is that martyrdom, or "laying down your life" has become confused with killing others - specifically in the context of religious belief.
United in suffering: Martyrdom as Christian vocation
Then you ask if we are afraid to present such examples to young people and are we perhaps afraid that they will dedicate their lives to others rather than selfish pursuits. You finish with the question - "Do we really think that there is no good on earth for which it is worth dying for? Many young people despise religion in all its forms. Consider the recent Catholic Synod on the Family. From inside the Catholic church I am sure it was of great importance with conservative and more liberal bishops debating and maneuvering around each other.
From the outside it was a group of old celibate men in silly cloths discussing the family. Other reasons? The deep stain of child abuse on many christian denominations but especially Catholicism. There is also the sheer bonkers anti-science biblical literalism mixed with judgmental primitivism that has been imported around the world from is spiritual home in the US like some toxic psychic sludge. Then there is whole sick mess in the Middle-East. Many young people feel passionate about the state of the world and are striving and succeeding to create a new global model of civilization.
They might be better and more relevant models for contemporary society. If I may suggest, your last set of questions come across as arrogant and disconnected from contemporary culture. Inherent in your questioning is a judgement of contemporary society.
Now who was it that said - "Judge not, lest ye be judged. That isn't Dr Jensen's main point. Dr Jensen is employing theological argumentative techniques to try and structure an issue in such a way as to put him and his faith in the most favourable light. In effect, what he's doing with this long-winded piece is "dealing" with the tricky problem of marking out righteous territory in a moral mess where, unless you send the thinkers and strategists in first to spot where all the landmines are and formulate a language and a position that keeps his "side" looking virtuous and thus feeling they have a legitimate right to speak and make all the pronouncements that follow.
The organisation Dr Jensen is affiliated to has been doing this for several thousand years - what you see here is I suspect for many a rare exposure to the backroom mechanics that are necessary to keep the whole edifice upright. One should neither be surprised by the article or bedazzled by the message as many here seem to be. The value of the article is as an instruction tool for anyone who is interested in how the old skills of rhetoric and debate haven't gone away, and how silly, ephemeral, modern gimmicks such as "social media" and the like don't especially when placed in the hands of intellectually and strategically limited people hold a candle to other forms of tried-and-tested forms of mind control.
Any good barrow-pusher begins the shove by first working out where all the pitfalls are, and building paths and erecting safety barriers around them before attempting to cross. This is merely an example of that technique. I know personally of what you speak Son of Zaky. It works by taking a young person and providing a systematic theological framework that explains reality through the agency of family and immediate community.
Throw in a religious system of education, sacraments cleverly linked to major life changes and a weekly symbolic ritual and you have an extremely sophisticated model of indoctrination; in other words, welcome to the world, this is reality, we are right and everyone else is wrong. It is essentially a mediaeval system that has not weathered well the rise of science and liberal democracies. If you do truly believe, then it becomes the framework upon which to hang your persona. Such frameworks often attract damaged personalities who find comfort in a defined set of rules.
Those frameworks also pose a challenge to those who begin to question their veracity because your sense of self is cut free without a support structure. That can be a very challenging psychological state. Interestingly it was the history of Christian mysticism that most interested me as I left the clutches of dogma. Dogmatic Christianity is a simple theology that does not take much thought to dismantle. What I found was a deep core of mystical knowledge in most religions, implicit or explicit to varying degrees. For example the ecstatic psycho-physical states of consciousness experienced by people such as John of the Cross correspond directly with various states of samadhi discussed in Hindu yoga treatises.
However, the mystical experience is a challenge to the church as it posits a direct relationship with Divinity that does not require the intervention of an organised religion. Hence the early treatment of mystics such as St Francis of Assisi. I understand your point about barrow pushers, but it is important to understand that someone like Dr Jensen genuinely believes in his understanding of Christianity. Seeking to resolve the obvious contradictions within Christian dogma has tangled up minds since St Paul and Augustine. It is also the source of libraries of theology and the famed question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is from that place of contradiction that Dr Jensen writes and theology, as you stated, is the intellectual mechanics used to support that contradiction. He is obviously well meaning but as I said previously, science, easy access to mystical teachings from around the world and liberal democratic societies have deconstructed what is essentially a mediaeval theology. Two very interesting topics in your much appreciated detailed and highly worthwhile reply Socrates. I'll have a dabble with each. I remember being in the cinema many decades ago watching the excellent film of an excellent book The Name of the Rose, and was taken aback at the point where the purpose of the clerical debate was revealed as to whether Christ owned his clothing or not, and large chunks of the audience burst out laughing.
It struck me then that very few people actually understand the highly structured indoctrination they exist with, and how far from being "funny" this sort of stuff is vital to maintaining the whole charade which is why theologians spend so much energy on it. I had already come to see The Bible which I've read all of - even the long, meandering unsexy bits that don't usually get a mention as having human hands all over it, and realising it and the corresponding dogmas that travel with it has been skilfully crafted with a sophisticated set of firewalls and linkages by very strategic thinkers.
It's a strange feeling to see how easily you can be "had" and yet at the same time admire the craft underpinning it. If you can tear yourself away from the man-made mind-control you are still left with the belief that, at core, there is "something" which lay behind the matter - even if it has been bastardised and hijacked for nefarious purposes. As such, I find it very easy to believe in God, but have no idea whatsoever what God is. Perhaps it's simply shorthand for "the unknown", perhaps it is knowable - but not by a human.
Perhaps it's neither. Ultimately pointless mental torture to be sure, but hours of highly enjoyable time-wasting entertainment nonetheless. Being trained in two disciplines of science myself I can see the tremendous shift that's occurred in my lifetime from s certainties to s uncertainties and undreamt-of complexities.
Which is good - I happen to think that may yield a level of incomprehension and humility which may better mesh with what I suppose you could call "reality". The "marriage" which appears to be the end-product is certainly delightfully ironic - more so for those who believe in the religion of science I think, as it must be damned annoying having to borrow your "opponent's" language of faith and metaphysical spookiness to stay in business as the unfathomable complexities mount up. Oscar Romero would have been a better example. Though he was assassinated, and did not choose his time of death, he stayed for the faith and for others when he could have left.
CIA still never charged over this either. Its not really radicalized behaviour, dying while killing infidels or muslims who go to paradise when they die is a sure fire way for any aspiring young muslim to go to heaven. Christianity has undergone reforms at various times and its actions are tolerated within society, Islam needs to be modernized before it has any place in a modern society, if it has any place at all. Its not correct to say that martyrdom has been stolen, it is just different for muslims than what it is to Christianity.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about, cfz. For starters, you have no answer to the obvious question that IF dying while killing infidels was a certain path to heaven the WHY are Indonesia's million muslims not coming at us from all directions? If you had a deeper understanding of religions out of the middle east then you might also understand that Islam was born out of the oppression of arabs by other other tribes with Judaic religions and thus became a refuge for many.
Luther's hymns inspired composers to write music. In contrast to the views of John Calvin  and Philipp Melanchthon ,  throughout his life Luther maintained that it was not false doctrine to believe that a Christian's soul sleeps after it is separated from the body in death. In his Smalcald Articles , he described the saints as currently residing "in their graves and in heaven. The Lutheran theologian Franz Pieper observed that Luther's teaching about the state of the Christian's soul after death differed from the later Lutheran theologians such as Johann Gerhard. Luther's Commentary on Genesis contains a passage which concludes that "the soul does not sleep anima non sic dormit , but wakes sed vigilat and experiences visions".
In October , Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse , convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy , to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. The theologians, including Zwingli , Melanchthon , Martin Bucer , and Johannes Oecolampadius , differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper : "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" 1 Corinthians 11 — Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time.
Luther stressed the omnipresence of Jesus' human nature. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" John 6. This is Hesse, not Switzerland. Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in of the Augsburg Confession , and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony , Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach.
The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements. Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther.
Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent by God to punish Christians, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the Antichrist , whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". In , Luther read a Latin translation of the Qur'an. Early in , Johannes Agricola — —serving at the time as pastor in Luther's birthplace, Eisleben—preached a sermon in which he claimed that God's gospel , not God's moral law the Ten Commandments , revealed God's wrath to Christians.
Based on this sermon and others by Agricola, Luther suspected that Agricola was behind certain anonymous antinomian theses circulating in Wittenberg. These theses asserted that the law is no longer to be taught to Christians but belonged only to city hall.
In his theses and disputations against the antinomians, Luther reviews and reaffirms, on the one hand, what has been called the "second use of the law," that is, the law as the Holy Spirit's tool to work sorrow over sin in man's heart, thus preparing him for Christ's fulfillment of the law offered in the gospel. On the other hand, Luther also points out that the Ten Commandments—when considered not as God's condemning judgment but as an expression of his eternal will, that is, of the natural law—also positively teach how the Christian ought to live.
The Ten Commandments, and the beginnings of the renewed life of Christians accorded to them by the sacrament of baptism , are a present foreshadowing of the believers' future angel -like life in heaven in the midst of this life. From December , Luther became implicated in the bigamy of Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse , who wanted to marry one of his wife's ladies-in-waiting. Philip solicited the approval of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, citing as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs. The theologians were not prepared to make a general ruling, and they reluctantly advised the landgrave that if he was determined, he should marry secretly and keep quiet about the matter because divorce was worse than bigamy.
However, Philip's sister Elisabeth quickly made the scandal public and Phillip threatened to expose Luther's advice. Luther told him to "tell a good, strong lie" and deny the marriage completely, which Philip did. In the view of Luther's biographer Martin Brecht , "giving confessional advice for Philip of Hesse was one of the worst mistakes Luther made, and, next to the landgrave himself, who was directly responsible for it, history chiefly holds Luther accountable".
Tovia Singer , an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, remarking about Luther's attitude toward Jews, put it thusly: "Among all the Church Fathers and Reformers, there was no mouth more vile, no tongue that uttered more vulgar curses against the Children of Israel than this founder of the Reformation. Luther wrote negatively about the Jews throughout his career. Therefore, in any case, away with them! Luther spoke out against the Jews in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia.
Throughout the s, riots led to the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states. Luther was the most widely read author of his generation, and within Germany he acquired the status of a prophet. Heinrich Himmler albeit never a Lutheran, having been brought up Catholic wrote admiringly of his writings and sermons on the Jews in Schulz and Dr.
On 17 December , seven Protestant regional church confederations issued a statement agreeing with the policy of forcing Jews to wear the yellow badge , "since after his bitter experience Luther had already suggested preventive measures against the Jews and their expulsion from German territory. Martin Brecht . At the heart of scholars' debate about Luther's influence is whether it is anachronistic to view his work as a precursor of the racial antisemitism of the Nazis.
Some scholars see Luther's influence as limited, and the Nazis' use of his work as opportunistic. Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there was no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology. Hillerbrand agreed that to focus on Luther was to adopt an essentially ahistorical perspective of Nazi antisemitism that ignored other contributory factors in German history. His position was entirely religious and in no respect racial. Probst, in his book Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany , shows that a large number of German Protestant clergy and theologians during the Nazi Third Reich used Luther's hostile publications towards the Jews and their Jewish religion to justify at least in part the anti-Semitic policies of the National Socialists.
Some scholars, such as Mark U. Edwards in his book Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics —46 , suggest that since Luther's increasingly antisemitic views developed during the years his health deteriorated, it is possible they were at least partly the product of a state of mind. Edwards also comments that Luther often deliberately used "vulgarity and violence" for effect, both in his writings condemning the Jews and in diatribes against "Turks" Muslims and Catholics. Since the s, Lutheran denominations have repudiated Martin Luther's statements against the Jews and have rejected the use of them to incite hatred against Lutherans.
Geary noted, based on his research, that the Nazi Party received disproportionately more votes from Protestant than Catholic areas of Germany. In , he began to suffer from kidney and bladder stones , arthritis , and an ear infection ruptured an ear drum. In December , he began to feel the effects of angina. His poor physical health made him short-tempered and even harsher in his writings and comments.
His wife Katharina was overheard saying, "Dear husband, you are too rude," and he responded, "They are teaching me to be rude. His last sermon was delivered at Eisleben , his place of birth, on 15 February , three days before his death. And so often they do. Luther's final journey, to Mansfeld, was taken because of his concern for his siblings' families continuing in their father Hans Luther's copper mining trade. Their livelihood was threatened by Count Albrecht of Mansfeld bringing the industry under his own control. Luther journeyed to Mansfeld twice in late to participate in the negotiations for a settlement, and a third visit was needed in early for their completion.
The negotiations were successfully concluded on 17 February When he went to his bed, he prayed, "Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God" Ps. He thanked God for revealing his Son to him in whom he had believed. His companions, Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius, shouted loudly, "Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in his name? He was buried in the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg , in front of the pulpit. A piece of paper was later found on which Luther had written his last statement.
The statement was in Latin, apart from "We are beggars," which was in German. The statement reads:. Do not assail this divine Aeneid ; nay, rather prostrate revere the ground that it treads. We are beggars: this is true. The tomb of Philipp Melanchthon , Luther's contemporary and fellow reformer, is also located in the All Saints' Church. Martin Luther's Death House , considered the site of Luther's death since However the building where Luther actually died at Markt 56, now the site of Hotel Graf von Mansfeld was torn down in Casts of Luther's face and hands at his death, in the Market Church in Halle .
Schlosskirche in Wittenberg, the site where Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses , is simultaneously his gravesite. Luther's tombstone beneath the pulpit in the Castle Church in Wittenberg. Luther made effective use of Johannes Gutenberg 's printing press to spread his views. He switched from Latin to German in his writing to appeal to a broader audience. Between and , Luther's works represented one fifth of all materials printed in Germany.
In the s and s, printed images of Luther that emphasized his monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast to images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with a "double chin, strong mouth, piercing deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and squat neck. His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly pleasures like drinking—behavior that was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders. Martin Luther is honored in various ways by Christian traditions coming out directly from the Protestant Reformation, i.
Lutheranism, the Reformed tradition , and Anglicanism. Branches of Protestantism that emerged afterwards vary in their remembrance and veneration of Luther, ranging from a complete lack of a single mention of him to a commemoration almost comparable to the way Lutherans commemorate and remember his persona.
There is no known condemnation of Luther by Protestants themselves.
- Protestantism | Origin, Definition, History, Doctrines, & Facts | eguwixagag.gq.
- United in suffering: Martyrdom as Christian vocation.
- The Hot Shots (Scotland Yard Exchange Book 2).
- A Little Prelude;
- Measuring Wellbeing: Towards Sustainability?.
Various sites both inside and outside Germany supposedly visited by Martin Luther throughout his lifetime commemorate it with local memorials. Mansfeld is sometimes called Mansfeld-Lutherstadt, although the state government has not decided to put the Lutherstadt -prefix in its official name.
Reformation Day commemorates the publication of the Ninety-five Theses in by Martin Luther; it has been historically important in the following European entities. Two further states Lower Saxony and Bremen are pending a vote on introducing it. Slovenia celebrates it due to the profound contribution of the Reformation to its culture.
Austria allows Protestant children not to go to school that day, and Protestant workers have a right to leave work in order to participate in a church service. Switzerland celebrates the holiday on the first Sunday after 31 October. It is also celebrated elsewhere around the world. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the monk who started the Reformation. For the activist, see Martin Luther King Jr. For other uses, see Martin Luther disambiguation. Saxon priest, monk and theologian, seminal figure in Protestant Reformation.
Martin Luther by Lucas Cranach the Elder. Friar Priest Theologian Professor. Luther's rose. Book of Concord. Apostles' Creed Nicene Creed. Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Theology of Martin Luther. Justification Law and Gospel. Sola gratia Sola scriptura. Christology Sanctification. Two kingdoms catholicity.
Two states of the Church Priesthood of all believers. Divine Providence Marian theology. Sacramental Union Homosexuality. Sacraments and worship. Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference. Bible translators. Walther F. Further information: History of Protestantism and History of Lutheranism. Main article: Sola fide. Main article: Diet of Worms. Main article: Luther Bible. Main article: List of hymns by Martin Luther. Ein feste Burg sung in German.
The German text of "Ein feste Burg" "A Mighty Fortress" sung to the isometric, more widely known arrangement of its traditional melody. Autograph of " Vater unser im Himmelreich ", with the only notes extant in Luther's handwriting. Further information: Protestantism and Islam. Main article: Martin Luther and antisemitism. See also: Christianity and antisemitism. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer.
No one can understand Virgil 's Bucolics unless he has been a shepherd for five years. No one can understand Virgil's Georgics , unless he has been a farmer for five years. No one can understand Cicero's Letters or so I teach , unless he has busied himself in the affairs of some prominent state for twenty years. Know that no one can have indulged in the Holy Writers sufficiently, unless he has governed churches for a hundred years with the prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha , John the Baptist , Christ and the apostles. Main article: Martin Luther bibliography.
Christianity portal. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Hendrix, Scott H. Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer. Yale University Press. Retrieved 12 November For example: "Thus formerly, when I was a monk, I used to hope that I would be able to pacify my conscience with the fastings, the praying, and the vigils with which I used to afflict my body in a way to excite pity. But the more I sweat, the less quiet and peace I felt; for the true light had been removed from my eyes.
Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, , Plass, What Luther Says , 3 vols. Louis: CPH, , 88, no. Concerning the Ministry , tr. Conrad Bergendoff, in Bergendoff, Conrad ed. Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, , ff. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Eerdmans; Brill, —, New York: Penguin, , New York: Penguin, , p. Paul, MN. Also see Hillerbrand, Hans. The Cambridge Companion to Luther. Cambridge University Press, In , Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ.
However, as the Reformation grew, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity, and in the years his health deteriorated he grew more acerbic toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwingli , and the pope. Eerdmans Pub. Martin Luther. Viking Penguin, , p. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, —93, —5.
Viking Penguin, , pp. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, —93, Retrieved 14 May Luther and His Times. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, , New York: Penguin, , 40— Luther The Reformer. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishing House, , New York: Penguin, , 44— Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, —93, — Quisquis ergo dicit, non citius posse animam volare, quam in fundo cistae denarius possit tinnire, errat.
In: D. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, , Luther , Frankfurt Hunter Publishing, Inc. Retrieved 7 February The Renaissance and Reformation Movements , St. New York: Cambridge University Press, , 88— Retrieved 13 July Archived from the original on 15 June Reformation — Concordia Seminary, St. Retrieved 28 March Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. New York: Oxford University Press, , Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann eds , Vol. John , author of Revelation , had been exiled on the island of Patmos.
Dickens cites as an example of Luther's "liberal" phraseology: "Therefore I declare that neither pope nor bishop nor any other person has the right to impose a syllable of law upon a Christian man without his own consent". Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, Luther's Works , 55 vols. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia Pub. House and Fortress Press, — , 50— Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Retrieved 17 May ; Bainton, Mentor edition, Eine Biographie in German. Munich: C. Retrieved 17 May ; Mullett, — On one occasion, Luther referred to the elector as an "emergency bishop" Notbischof. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, , —73; Bainton, Mentor edition, Arand, "Luther on the Creed. Hans J. World Digital Library. Retrieved 2 June The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.
Luther inserted the word "alone" allein after the word "faith" in his translation of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans , The clause is rendered in the English Authorised Version as "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law". Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Original sourcebook excerpt taken from Luther's Works.
Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. William Orme New York: Appleton. Studia Instrumentorum. Retrieved 23 March Es ist eine unbedingte Notwendigkeit, dass der Deutsche zu seinen Liedern auch ein echt deutsches Begleitinstrument besitzt. Liederheft von C. Archived from the original on 14 October Retrieved 7 October Leaver, "Luther's Catechism Hymns.
Leaver, "Luther's Catechism Hymns: 5. Franz Pieper Christliche Dogmatik , 3 vols. A sleep of the soul which includes enjoyment of God says Luther cannot be called a false doctrine. Klug, ed. Louis: CPH , ; "Sufficit igitur nobis haec cognitio, non egredi animas ex corporibus in periculum cruciatum et paenarum inferni, sed esse eis paratum cubiculum, in quo dormiant in pace. Retrieved 15 August Pieper writes: "Luther speaks more guardedly of the state of the soul between death and resurrection than do Gerhard and the later theologians, who transfer some things to the state between death and resurrection which can be said with certainty only of the state after the resurrection" Christian Dogmatics , , footnote Tode ruhe, leugneten auch die nicht, welche ihr Wachen behaupteten :c.
Ueberhaupt ist mit Luthers Ansehen bey der ganzen Streitigkeit nichts zu gewinnen. Christopf Stephan Elsperger Gottlieb p. Homo enim in hac vita defatigatus diurno labore, sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum tanquam in pace, ut ibi dormiat, et ea nocte fruitur quiete, neque quicquam scit de ullo malo sive incendii, sive caedis. Anima autem non sic dormit, sed vigilat, et patitur visiones loquelas Angelorum et Dei. Ideo somnus in futura vita profundior est quam in hac vita et tamen anima coram Deo vivit.
Hac similitudine, quam habeo a somno viventia. Emphasis added. The siege was lifted on 14 October , which Luther saw as a divine miracle. Sonntag, Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, , 23— Sonntag, Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, , 11— Luther's Works — There he writes: "Dear God, should it be unbearable that the holy church confesses itself a sinner, believes in the forgiveness of sins, and asks for remission of sin in the Lord's Prayer? How can one know what sin is without the law and conscience? And how will we learn what Christ is, what he did for us, if we do not know what the law is that he fulfilled for us and what sin is, for which he made satisfaction?
Luther's Works 41, —14, —44, — There he said about the antinomians: "They may be fine Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers, for they do not preach de sanctificatione et vivificatione Spiritus Sancti , "about the sanctification by the Holy Spirit," but solely about the redemption of Jesus Christ" Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal, 33— Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal , 76, — Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal , , Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal , 75, —05, — Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal , Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal , "The law, therefore, cannot be eliminated, but remains, prior to Christ as not fulfilled, after Christ as to be fulfilled, although this does not happen perfectly in this life even by the justified.
This will happen perfectly first in the coming life. Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal, , 43—44, 91— Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, —93, 3: For a more extensive list of quotes from Luther on the topic of polygamy, see page 11 and following of Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy Nathan R. Outreach Judaism. Retrieved 20 July Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, , ; Mullett, Luther's Last Battles. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, , Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company. No judgment could be sharper. Archived from the original on 22 April Retrieved 22 April CS1 maint: archived copy as title link. New York: Penguin Books Ltd, , pp. Hillerbrand writes: "His strident pronouncements against the Jews, especially toward the end of his life, have raised the question of whether Luther significantly encouraged the development of German anti-Semitism. Although many scholars have taken this view, this perspective puts far too much emphasis on Luther and not enough on the larger peculiarities of German history. Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics — Philadelphia: Fortress, , ; Rupp, Gordon.
Martin Luther , 75; Siemon-Netto, Uwe. Lutheran Witness , Christopher Probst.