you kicked us out because we asked you to not fleece your flock
I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards the Catholic side of things, if it weren't for the fact that its claim to authority is based on nothing but circular logic, and the fact that it continues to defy clear scriptural teaching with its doctrine.Perhaps there was no other way, because man is so flawed. But that doesn't make this bitter tragedy a good thing, as some (most?) Protestants appear to believe.
A true reformation would have been a much better alternative to the OTL schismatic ruination (which wasn't even driven by genuine faith -- Luther had actually wanted a true reform, at least originally -- but by base political ambitions on the part of temporal princes). This would have kept things fairly united on theology, too. The primary matter was corruption within the Church. Had that been addressed earlier and more comprehensively, there would have been little support for more violent reform proposals. (And only very few would, at the outset, have signed on for openly schimatic ventures.)
So then the Church would still be one, at least in the West, and a lot of grief would have been avoided. The lesson is that all of it only happened because of crass greed and other unworthy motivations-- on both sides. The Church was infested with corrupt leaders, and Protestantism was chiefly successful because it became a very useful tool for power-hungry princes who wanted absolute control.
Perhaps there was no other way, because man is so flawed. But that doesn't make this bitter tragedy a good thing, as some (most?) Protestants appear to believe.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards the Catholic side of things, if it weren't for the fact that its claim to authority is based on nothing but circular logic, and the fact that it continues to defy clear scriptural teaching with its doctrine.
The cornerstone of the Catholic Church as an organization seems to be its presumption of sole authority over how scripture is interpreted, and interposing themselves as an additional stage of intermediation between God and Man. This is an inherently corrupt doctrine, and setup that fairly obviously was designed to gain worldly power and influence, rather than to serve God's purposes.
I see this position as being no different than blaming Catholicism for what later secular thinkers did.My position is not based on my own faith but on the demonstrable outcomes of the Reformation (which I hold to be mostly detrimental in a ocio-political context, regardless of theology). In that same way, I would advise you to regard the matter on those terms. Put aside what you hold to be theologically correct, and ask whether the Reformation was good on its own terms. Was this a desirable outcome? Which alternatives are there?
I see this position as being no different than blaming Catholicism for what later secular thinkers did.
If you're going to blame Protestant thinkers for the philosophy of those who came later, completely rejecting Christianity, then it is just as reasonable to blame the Catholics that the Protestants were rejecting.
Wasn't one of the things that set people off was the selling of indulgences? Where a rich person could donate to a church or bishop and the get a slip of paper saying his sins were forgiven before he did them?
You put blame on the Protestant Reformation/Protestant Thinkers for people like Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx, who came later, even though such thinkers explicitly rejected Christianity.I don't see the equivalence here. But frankly, your post is a bit confusing. The subject of your first sentence isn't clear. You say "this position", which is supposedly "no different than blaming Catholicism for what later secular thinkers did".
Which position? Mine? Yours? What are you trying to say here?
You put blame on the Protestant Reformation/Protestant Thinkers for people like Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx, who came later, even though such thinkers explicitly rejected Christianity.
If you're going to blame people for the ideology of someone else who has rejected the core of said people's ideology, then by logical extension, the Catholic Church and its thinkers are responsible for the Protestant Reformation, and thus for Rousseau, Hegel, etc.
Except that what Rousseau came up with involved explicit rejection of Christianity and all of its fundamental doctrines.For the same reason, it is silly to blame the Catholic Church for bad ideas that the Protestants came up with. You can blame the Catholics from that time for their own bad ideas (of which there were plenty), but the fact that the Protestants came up with terrible alternatives of their own is on them, not on the Church.
Except that what Rousseau came up with involved explicit rejection of Christianity and all of its fundamental doctrines.
It is the same sort of thing, except even more so. If you're going to blame Protestants for what someone who rejects Christianity as a whole believes, then it is just as rational to blame the Catholics for the Protestants rejecting them.
This is false the Catholic Church's authority is not a circular argument. Papal supremacy is. But the authority of the Church was there from the beginning. Before the 1500's the doctrine of sola scriptura of some random individual having the authority to interpret scripture by themselves was ridiculous. The Church as a whole not only interpreted scripture but decided what scripture was. That's why protestants don't even have the complete Bible.I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards the Catholic side of things, if it weren't for the fact that its claim to authority is based on nothing but circular logic, and the fact that it continues to defy clear scriptural teaching with its doctrine.
The cornerstone of the Catholic Church as an organization seems to be its presumption of sole authority over how scripture is interpreted, and interposing themselves as an additional stage of intermediation between God and Man. This is an inherently corrupt doctrine, and setup that fairly obviously was designed to gain worldly power and influence, rather than to serve God's purposes.
Except you've failed in any way to explain how philosophies attached to a Christian worldview are the responsibility of a bunch of anti-Christian philosophers.They're not horrible because they didn't want to be Catholics anymore. They're horrible because their ideas were so fucking crap.
Except you've failed in any way to explain how philosophies attached to a Christian worldview are the responsibility of a bunch of anti-Christian philosophers.
A Christian worldview does not permit Roussouean thought. They're fundamentally incompatible. Similarly so for Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Hitler.
You can argue about the particulars of peripheral details of ideology that may or may not be shared with such anti-Christian thinkers, but if they're rejecting the core of your philosophy, then that is on them, not on you.
I believe that the death penalty is sometimes warranted. I'm a writer. I have published stuff online and at some time hope to get published 'conventionally' as well. It is not my fault if at some point down the road some secularist decides that 'the death penalty is appropriate for those who reject atheism.' Just because we agree that the death penalty is at some times appropriate, does not remotely mean that I bear any responsibility for his terrible ideology.
The only way I can see your position making any sense, is if the 'protestants' you're thinking about had rejected God, the Bible, the Gospel, et al, and were wearing the skinsuit of a church while claiming to still be Christians. And at that point the problem isn't 'protestant philosophy,' it's 'heretics claiming to be christians.'
1.Dissident folks who do not listen to protestant rulers died.Not really. Educate yourself about how doctrine actually was decided in the various Protestant state churches, maybe?
And about all the Dissenter folks who didn't feel any obligation to toe the line.
I think the stories of that sort of thing are over-hyped. People in the 18th Century "Age of Enlightenment" made up all sorts of nonsense about previous eras.
One of the reasons that nothing like the French Revolution happened in the UK, was the spiritual impact of the Methodist Revival. Meanwhile, Roman Catholic kingdoms whose rulers did not care if you were an Atheist, so long as you were not a Protestant, sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
In the justice of God, those nations that rejected the Reformation got the Revolution instead.