If you went back in time to Martin Luther and said...

[JohnT]

"Hey, Martin. This thing you're going to put on the church door tomorrow? Don't do it. Please.

Why? You'll destroy everything you know and cherish: instead of bringing the world closer to Christ, your words will destroy the hegemony of the Christian faith and allow billions to turn away from the true faith, towards Islam, Hindu, and religions yet unborn. Even more, your message of "every man his counsel with God" got subverted to "every man his counsel" which led to non-theistic movements such as the Enlightenment and Communism, and made it possible for hundreds of millions of Europeans to live contendedly without religion, without Christ.

You will destroy Christendom, while Islam retains an apparent theistic unity.

You will destroy belief in God and his agents, turning it into a belief unto yourselves and the judgement of people.

You will destroy the Church as a temporal power, giving all power to tax and to fight to the princes and kings, who themselves will come to control the Church.

And that's long-term. Short term, over the next 200 years, Europe will tear itself apart in wars brought about by the implications of your words, wars that will devastate the lands like nothing seen since the plague years. And, in the end, an exhausted Europe sort of decides that religion just isn't worth it anymore, and slowly she casts off the heritage that you agreed to uphold. The numbers that died because of the debate you touched off are unknown, but could easily exceed 50 million.

However. You... you will be known as a great man, one who will regularly make (if you can understand the following concept) lists of "the 10 most important people of the millennium", lists compiled 500 years from now. But your greatness will come from shattering religious dogma and your role in giving birth to a secular society, not for saving Christendom.

All because of you and those theses."

Do you think he would still do it? Or would he be compelled by his tempestuous nature to still rant at the short-term problem of indulgences, letting the future take care of itself?

[Main_Brain]

Of course he would.
After all he didnt understand English...

[JohnT]

I was waiting for that. Thanks for getting it out of the way.

[BlackCat]

Re: If you went back in time to Martin Luther and said...

Originally posted by JohnT
Do you think he would still do it? Or would he be compelled by his tempestuous nature to still rant at the short-term problem of indulgences, letting the future take care of itself?

He might be scared, but I would really hope that he had the balls to do it anyway.

[molly bloom]

Re: If you went back in time to Martin Luther and said...

Originally posted by JohnT


Do you think he would still do it? Or would he be compelled by his tempestuous nature to still rant at the short-term problem of indulgences, letting the future take care of itself?

The Renaissance Church by his time was a disgrace in many areas, such as the organizing hierarchy, the candidates for holy office- orgies held in the Vatican ? Tsk, tsk.

Paedophile cardinals catered for by artists such as Caravaggio ?

Church offices sold off to the highest bidder, or taken up by unordained children ?

Grotesque.

Barbara Tuchman has a very good chapter on the era in 'The March of Folly'- well worth reading.

As are the sex lives of some of the Renaissance popes, but that's another story...

To qualify as folly for this book, Tuchman explains, acts have to be clearly contrary to the self- interest of the organization or group pursuing them; conducted over a period of time, not just in a single burst of irrational behavior; conducted by a number of individuals, not just one deranged maniac; and, importantly, there have to be people alive at the time who pointed out correctly why the act in question was folly (no 20/20 hindsight allowed).

http://www.stoneschool.com/Reviews/MarchOfFolly.html

[Kuciwalker]

molly: Laz already has a column on that.

[BeBMan]

Nietzsche would have said that to Luther, but for other reasons.

[JohnT]

Nice book, Molly. I'll grab a copy today. Thanks!

[Kuciwalker]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107598

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
molly: Laz already has a column on that.

On what, precisely ?

Barbara Tuchman's 'March of Folly' ?

The inability of the Roman Catholic Church in the Renaissance to put its house in order without the pressure caused by Luther's protest ?

Caravaggio's painting 'Victorious Amor' ?

There's rather more to my post than a passing mention of the sex lives of some of the popes.

[Kuciwalker]

The sex lives are far more amusing though.

Particularly the way Laz writes.

[JohnT]

It's one of Laz's "10 worst" posts that he does. IIRC, he did one on the 10 worst Popes.

...

If Luther would've listened and not had one of his raving **** fits, he might not have taken his battle outside the church as much as he did, relying upon the protection, and making appeals to, the Elector of Saxony (and others). By keeping it within the church he would not have flamed the nascent nationalist timbers anywhere to the degree that he did.

As to whether his new approach would lead to reforms of the Roman church (i.e., if they worked)... probably not, human nature being what it is. Imho, there could be likely be a schism, again, but this time between the Romans and the Germans, not the Romans vs. the French. Whether or not the schism could be healed... well, then you're entering the world of fantasy.

So... that implies that the Reformation was perhaps something in the air, waiting to happen, and that if it weren't Luther, it would've been somebody else. Not Erasmus, he was too much the Establishment Man, the Man in the Grey Flannel Robes. Calvin, maybe?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The sex lives are far more amusing though.

Particularly the way Laz writes.

I wasn't writing to 'amuse' - which I thought would have been obvious, given the tenor of my post.

But thanks for the tips on literary style and content- I'll be real sure to bear them in mind the next time I have the temerity to casually mention in passing something you may recall featuring in someone else's posts.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JohnT


By keeping it within the church he would not have flamed the nascent nationalist timbers anywhere to the degree that he did.


So... that implies that the Reformation was perhaps something in the air, waiting to happen, and that if it weren't Luther, it would've been somebody else. Not Erasmus, he was too much the Establishment Man, the Man in the Grey Flannel Robes. Calvin, maybe?

It's worth bearing in mind that the new sects seemed to go hand in hand with 'nationalist' fervour in many states in Northern Europe- Calvinism in the United Provinces, Scotland, some Swiss cantons and some German states, Lutheranism in Sweden, Denmark and some German states, and of course the Anglican confession in England.

But Calvin could still cooperate with the Catholic Church to put to death 'Protestants' he wasn't keen on- the antitrinitarian martyr, Michael Servetus for instance:

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/servetus.html

Nevertheless, Calvin is to be regarded as the author of the prosecution, and in this and in the subsequent burning of Servetus his course met the approval of the most advanced theologians of the time.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/comserv.html#6

As the Puritans in England and New England found, the Protestant dependence on the book, the scriptures, as sole authority brings with it the tendency for people to become their own authorities on what god does and does not allow.

[Philosophiser]

Re: Re: If you went back in time to Martin Luther and said...

Originally posted by molly bloom



The Renaissance Church by his time was a disgrace in many areas, such as the organizing hierarchy, the candidates for holy office- orgies held in the Vatican ? Tsk, tsk.

Paedophile cardinals catered for by artists such as Caravaggio ?

Church offices sold off to the highest bidder, or taken up by unordained children ?

Grotesque.

Barbara Tuchman has a very good chapter on the era in 'The March of Folly'- well worth reading.

As are the sex lives of some of the Renaissance popes, but that's another story...



http://www.stoneschool.com/Reviews/MarchOfFolly.html

Couldn't have said it better myself! I must leave for a few days but will be back soon.