Muistan ajan jolloin ihailin Martti Lutherin kiihkoa, mutta nytten vartuneempana ja vapaana vanhentuneista historian käsitteeistä ymmärän Martin olleen ailahteleva jalkapallo suuremassa pelissä.
Vaikkakin monet uskonnot luottavat väritetyn historian propaganda voimaan, niin mikään uskonto niin kuin protestantismi on luottanut tähän ja viljellyt sitä niin tehokkaasti että vielä tänä päivänä syömme protestanttisen historian versiota oikein kiltisti lautaselta. Protestantismi oli kauan häviämisen uhan alla ja siten ei riittänyt ainoastaan varhais kapitalistien ja muiden ylhäisön tuki, vaan tarvittiin rakempia propaganda aseita.
Monen Pojoisen-Euroopan kuninkaan tai kuningattaren loikkaaminen katolilisuuteen(ilman hyöty taviottelua) tai sen avoin tuki aiheutti vihaa ja kateutta koska tunsivat sisimässään kuuluvan NOUSUKASUSKONTOON.
Itse tavallisena lutherilaisena tunsin jonkin aikaa kiinostusta liberaaliseen yhteiskunta ajatteluun ja uskonnon rajaamiseen pois yhteiskunnasta kiitos lutherilaisen historian kirjoituksen, joka aina ennen niin (ja vielä) vahvasti halusi heikentää katolisen kirkon uskottavuutta historiassa ymmärtämättä että se heikensi yleisellä tasolla vahvan historiallisen kristillis identiteetin.
Protestantismi on ollut seuraavien tuotteiden primus motor: kapitalismi, induvidualismi-egoistisellä huutomerkillä, liberalismi, indeferentianismi, ja muut tee se itse paketti ja äläkä anna jonkun sanoa mulle mikä on totuus&kristillien oikeaoppisuus.
Alla olevan artikkelipalan sain eräältä ystävältä, ja ilman että olen kääntänyt sitä pistän sen tänne.
Kiitos. En halua suututta ketään mutta lutherilaisuus on niin masentava. Eihän enään kukaan sunnuntaisin käykkään kuuntelemassa leipäpappien horinoita. Mitäs sitä sitten puolustamaan.
Although there are many arguments from reason which one could employ to destroy this "respect" notion, this essay centers on the following one—even a cursory study of major comparative religions should lead one to an inescapable conclusion: almost without exception, every false religion was founded by a sociopathic sexual degenerate. Furthermore, every religion retains the personality of its founder. This is true for Protestantism, Islam, Mormonism.
Because of the fact that Martin Luther was a murderous anti-Semitic anti-Catholic, the casual Luther historian often loses sight of the less pertinent fact that Luther himself was a sociopathic sexual degenerate. His entire philosophy of faith without good works is the virtual battle cry of the sociopath. While the habitual sinner might make an effort to defend his actions from a moral perspective, Luther went further. Luther claimed that none of his actions were in need of repentance, nor was repentance even possible. Luther was fond of saying that man's best works were filthy rags, and throughout his entire adult life, he seems to have been intent on setting out to prove it personally. He continually called on his followers to murder priests, bishops, and popes, personally wishing the streets of Rome to flow with the blood of Catholics.
In the sexual realm, Luther lived in sin for many years. He renounced his vow of chastity and married a nun who had done the same. Luther references in several of his works that he finally wed, not because he was in love, but because he grew tired of constant onanism. Furthermore, his life and writings lead one to conclude that he saw women merely as sex objects. As he explains in a letter to several nuns, dated 6 August 1524, Luther writes:
Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this, nevertheless Scripture and experience show that among many thousands there is not a one to whom God has given to remain in pure chastity. A woman has no control over herself.
Luther further alluded to the fact that he fornicated with other women during his marriage, claiming that marriage alone could not suffice for the constant pressures of concupiscence. Along these same lines, we know from historical evidence that Luther was in favor of polygamy, as he claimed: "I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture." (De Wette, vol. 2, 459)
As much as his biographers attempt to historically "reform" the reformer, there is no doubt that there were few, if any, sexual deviances that Luther did not either commit or endorse.
Has Protestantism retained the character of its founder? Due to the perennial fragmentation of Lutheranism, Protestantism has rightly come to be known not so much for what it is, but for what it is not: it is not Catholicism. Many Protestants consider any branch of Christianity worthy of salvific power, except one, Catholicism. Not coincidentally, the Catholic Church constitutes the only branch of Christianity that has remained a loyal proponent of sexual ethics. This leaves the deviant non-Catholic Christian with one major problem: if he were to admit that the Catholic Church is the authentic form of Christianity, then a Christian must practice sexual ethics. For a vast number of Protestants, this is too much to ask.
Vaikkakin monet uskonnot luottavat väritetyn historian propaganda voimaan, niin mikään uskonto niin kuin protestantismi on luottanut tähän ja viljellyt sitä niin tehokkaasti että vielä tänä päivänä syömme protestanttisen historian versiota oikein kiltisti lautaselta. Protestantismi oli kauan häviämisen uhan alla ja siten ei riittänyt ainoastaan varhais kapitalistien ja muiden ylhäisön tuki, vaan tarvittiin rakempia propaganda aseita.
Monen Pojoisen-Euroopan kuninkaan tai kuningattaren loikkaaminen katolilisuuteen(ilman hyöty taviottelua) tai sen avoin tuki aiheutti vihaa ja kateutta koska tunsivat sisimässään kuuluvan NOUSUKASUSKONTOON.
Itse tavallisena lutherilaisena tunsin jonkin aikaa kiinostusta liberaaliseen yhteiskunta ajatteluun ja uskonnon rajaamiseen pois yhteiskunnasta kiitos lutherilaisen historian kirjoituksen, joka aina ennen niin (ja vielä) vahvasti halusi heikentää katolisen kirkon uskottavuutta historiassa ymmärtämättä että se heikensi yleisellä tasolla vahvan historiallisen kristillis identiteetin.
Protestantismi on ollut seuraavien tuotteiden primus motor: kapitalismi, induvidualismi-egoistisellä huutomerkillä, liberalismi, indeferentianismi, ja muut tee se itse paketti ja äläkä anna jonkun sanoa mulle mikä on totuus&kristillien oikeaoppisuus.
Alla olevan artikkelipalan sain eräältä ystävältä, ja ilman että olen kääntänyt sitä pistän sen tänne.
Kiitos. En halua suututta ketään mutta lutherilaisuus on niin masentava. Eihän enään kukaan sunnuntaisin käykkään kuuntelemassa leipäpappien horinoita. Mitäs sitä sitten puolustamaan.
Although there are many arguments from reason which one could employ to destroy this "respect" notion, this essay centers on the following one—even a cursory study of major comparative religions should lead one to an inescapable conclusion: almost without exception, every false religion was founded by a sociopathic sexual degenerate. Furthermore, every religion retains the personality of its founder. This is true for Protestantism, Islam, Mormonism.
Because of the fact that Martin Luther was a murderous anti-Semitic anti-Catholic, the casual Luther historian often loses sight of the less pertinent fact that Luther himself was a sociopathic sexual degenerate. His entire philosophy of faith without good works is the virtual battle cry of the sociopath. While the habitual sinner might make an effort to defend his actions from a moral perspective, Luther went further. Luther claimed that none of his actions were in need of repentance, nor was repentance even possible. Luther was fond of saying that man's best works were filthy rags, and throughout his entire adult life, he seems to have been intent on setting out to prove it personally. He continually called on his followers to murder priests, bishops, and popes, personally wishing the streets of Rome to flow with the blood of Catholics.
In the sexual realm, Luther lived in sin for many years. He renounced his vow of chastity and married a nun who had done the same. Luther references in several of his works that he finally wed, not because he was in love, but because he grew tired of constant onanism. Furthermore, his life and writings lead one to conclude that he saw women merely as sex objects. As he explains in a letter to several nuns, dated 6 August 1524, Luther writes:
Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this, nevertheless Scripture and experience show that among many thousands there is not a one to whom God has given to remain in pure chastity. A woman has no control over herself.
Luther further alluded to the fact that he fornicated with other women during his marriage, claiming that marriage alone could not suffice for the constant pressures of concupiscence. Along these same lines, we know from historical evidence that Luther was in favor of polygamy, as he claimed: "I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture." (De Wette, vol. 2, 459)
As much as his biographers attempt to historically "reform" the reformer, there is no doubt that there were few, if any, sexual deviances that Luther did not either commit or endorse.
Has Protestantism retained the character of its founder? Due to the perennial fragmentation of Lutheranism, Protestantism has rightly come to be known not so much for what it is, but for what it is not: it is not Catholicism. Many Protestants consider any branch of Christianity worthy of salvific power, except one, Catholicism. Not coincidentally, the Catholic Church constitutes the only branch of Christianity that has remained a loyal proponent of sexual ethics. This leaves the deviant non-Catholic Christian with one major problem: if he were to admit that the Catholic Church is the authentic form of Christianity, then a Christian must practice sexual ethics. For a vast number of Protestants, this is too much to ask.
Vastaukset 1
Vanhimmat
Mielenkiintoinen kirjoitus ja erityisesti mielenkiintoinen sitaatti. Voitko kertoa sen alkuperän?