"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?
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?
Comment