NationStates Jolt Archive

"The abbeys are as much your property as the game that runs on your lands. The monasteries . . . are dens of iniquity, which you must root out, if you would have God bless you." (50:295)
- Martin Luther

The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and nailed to the gallows!" (92:94/35)
- Martin Luther

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . than that one soul should be destroyed . . . If they will not hear God's Word . . . what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians." (122:377/36)
- Martin Luther

"If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . ." (109:41/37)
- Martin Luther

"If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it . . . To the fire with them!" (51;v.6:247/39)
- Martin Luther

"If we punish thieves with the gallows . . . why do we not still more attack with every kind of weapon . . . these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not wash our hands in their blood?" (109:41/38)
- Martin Luther

"It is a duty to suppress the Pope by force." (51;v.6:245/42)
- Martin Luther

There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master - namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]." (111;v.10:222/48)
- Martin Luther

"That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death." (111;v.10:222-3/49)
- Martin Luther

"Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist . . . deserve to be repressed by the sword."
- John Calvin

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." (46:191)
- John Calvin

I could say many more. However, it becomes clear that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Protestant "reformers" were violent and wanted to mass kill off the Catholics of the time. John Calvin had many innocent Catholics burned at the stake, and Martin Luther told Protestant princes to loot and pillage monerstaries and abbeys.

In England the sexually perverted King Henry VIII broke from the Holy Catholic Church and stole Catholic land and money out of selfishness. Other murderous English rulers like the bloodthirsty Elizabeth I and the beast Oliver Cromwell (when Cromwell sacked Wessex he killed more people than the Inquisition did throughout its entire history) killed millions of Irish Catholics beacuse of their religion.

History is clear. The Catholics were victims of the reformists and no matter how much people try to hide it today the own words of the reformists speak for themesevles.

Man, I guess you don't want to hear about all the shit catholics have done then, do you?

History is clear.

No, history is a lie agreed upon. It is almost never "clear"

And I have nothing against many Protestants today (except for Jack Chick, Ian Paisely, Pat Robertson, ect.). However I do have a grudge against the leading murderous Protestant "reformers" who caused much bloodshed in Europe and killed millions of faithful Catholics. Luther, Calvin, and various "reformers" like them were monsters.

Some religious groups are always victims of prejudice and discrimination - look at the Holocaust. Equally some groups seem always to be prejudiced and discriminatory. I don't know what your point is though as there are few people today who condone this sort of behaviour and those that do are just extremists.

No, history is a lie agreed upon. It is almost never "clear"

Well, there are some lies. Like the crusades. In school I was taught the crusaders were the bad guys, when any real historian could clearly see they were the good guys fighting to defend their faith against the Turkish menace. I'll explain why if you want.

Defensor Fidei?

what do the numbers after the quotes refer to?

You've also got to remember that at the time the people you quote - 2 is hardly a case by the way - the Catholic Church was very corrupt and it was the corruption which seemed to them to get in the way of the gospel that such reformers were fighting against rather than the Catholics individually, though I agree that to us today their views seem very extreme and violent.

Defensor Fidei?

No.

You've also got to remember that at the time the people you quote - 2 is hardly a case by the way - the Catholic Church was very corrupt and it was the corruption which seemed to them to get in the way of the gospel that such reformers were fighting against rather than the Catholics individually, though I agree that to us today their views seem very extreme and violent.

Then why did the "refomers" butcher so many good Catholics and loot Catholic churches?

what do the numbers after the quotes refer to?

The works of the "reformers" that the quote can be found in and sometimes the date.

Well, there are some lies. Like the crusades. In school I was taught the crusaders were the bad guys, when any real historian could clearly see they were the good guys fighting to defend their faith against the Turkish menace. I'll explain why if you want.

I think in "real" history it's very dangerous to dumb it down at all to the level of "good guys" and "bad guys" as there are always two sides to any historical event.

Make a cracksquad of pedophile priest to go sieze Martin Luther's body and burn it at the stake!

did y'all miss the massive amount of death and destruction that accompanied the reformation? it was bad on both sides.

Then why did the "refomers" butcher so many good Catholics and loot Catholic churches?

Because they felt that the Catholic faith did not put Jesus at its centre - with High Altars and stained glass etc. I personally don't agree with their actions at all I'm just saying it's not black and white.

Well, there are some lies. Like the crusades. In school I was taught the crusaders were the bad guys, when any real historian could clearly see they were the good guys fighting to defend their faith against the Turkish menace. I'll explain why if you want.

Could you. Im very interested in the Crusades

did y'all miss the massive amount of death and destruction that accompanied the reformation? it was bad on both sides.

very true

Well since we invaded, raped, pillaged and murdered while they fought according to a decent code of war in defence of their land, of course we are the good guys, hmmm?

That was about the crusades.

The reformation was civil war within a religion, bloody, messy and politically awful.

Because they felt that the Catholic faith did not put Jesus at its centre - with High Altars and stained glass etc. I personally don't agree with their actions at all I'm just saying it's not black and white.

yah... worshiping Mary, the whole pay-to-get-into-heaven-faster thing, priests assigning the power of salvation to themselves (priests don't save people... Jesus does), etc., are/were a few of the deficiencies of Catholicism that set the Reformation in motion.

The reformation was certainly bloody and viscious, but it had its roots in the corruption in the Roman Catholic Chuch.

This family (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/borgias/2.html?sect=6) may well be responsible for the whole mess. Good Catholic stock.

However I am of Protestant (Anglican) descent, and am married very happily, thank you, to a person of Roman Catholic upbringing. The events of the past are of the past. We have to live with them, we can not undo them. I can see no reason, however, to perpetuate the feud.

Then why did the "refomers" butcher so many good Catholics and loot Catholic churches?

Why did the "catholics" butcher so many good Reformers? And you use "two" people to justify this?

Where is Menno Simmons? Theodore Beza? Heidrict Zwingli? John Knox? Peter Valdes? John Wyclif? Jon Huss?

Where is the mention of John Wyclif being exhumed by Catholic's in Brittain in the 14th century for the "heresy" of translating the Bible into English, and post-humously "Burned at the steak" with copies of his translation, just as Nero did to early Christians in Rome?

Where is the mention of Catholics hunting down the Waldensians and Hussites in the 12th to 15th centuries, and burtally slaughtering them in their communes?

Where is the mention of the Remonstrance, where the Catholic Church seized lands from Lord's who sided with the Reformers? (This is where the term "Prostestant" originated from, because it was those in Protest of the Remonstrance against non-Catholic Lord's of Europe, whereby they came to be known as "Protestants", in "Protesting" the Papal levy against their lands).

Why were Calvin and Luther so angered in their message? Because the RCC pushed them that way... The Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was a bloody, vile apostate church. And to the reformers, war was for their very survival.

You mention the "bloodyness" of Elizabeth, yet negate to mention Mary's even bloodier regime before hand.

Don't give me your one-sided hypocrisy...

Both sides were bloody in this time period... And unlike the present Reformed Church, and the Present Catholic Church, we have at least LEARNED from the violence of those times.... Too bad people like you are so damned stupid and blind, to fall back into supporting the errors of that time, and lend a deaf ear to your own apostasy. If you think the RCC was the "innocent victim" you've been blind-sided by the moronic order.

You would do better to look at what was happening, in those dark times, and learn from them.

Well, there are some lies. Like the crusades. In school I was taught the crusaders were the bad guys, when any real historian could clearly see they were the good guys fighting to defend their faith against the Turkish menace. I'll explain why if you want.

Exactly. You see certain events in the past and interpretations of the past as truth and certain encompassing of situations as lie. Each historian (or poster on the forum in this case) will likely have a different set of interpretations and understandings which they cling to. Thus, the only way a single 'history' could be established is if a group have a common set of understandings about the past. These understandings common to some, are lies to others.

Who is right? In the end, the 'right' history, that is adopted by the largest groups of people (such as the teaching of crusaders as "evil"). It is decided on how many people agree with a certain depiction of history or certain sets of evidence.

As this 'democratic' understanding of history goes, history is less of a proven set science as a democracy of different ideas, the one with the most voices (not necessarily the most actual truth) is the adopted history. That is to say, there may be evidence for or against a certain history (interpretation depiction, etc.), but there can never be proven history. Just more likely history. Or, as Napoleon put it, "a lie agreed upon".

I could say many more. However, it becomes clear that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Protestant "reformers" were violent and wanted to mass kill off the Catholics of the time. John Calvin had many innocent Catholics burned at the stake, and Martin Luther told Protestant princes to loot and pillage monerstaries and abbeys.

Actually, it becomes clear from your quotes alone that Martin Luther, John Calvin wanted to see Catholics dead. I'm sure other reformers probably wanted that too, seeing as how Catholics were heathens to them, but that doesn't really 'become clear' from your quotes. Mind you, I don't think the Pope and his cronies would have minded very much if Luther & company were to be met with tragic accidents of the same reason...

The whole "they're heathens"-thing also explains the looting and pillaging. Technically, to the Protestants, the Catholic church had taken their lands and their riches in the name of a false religion, which made them thieves as far as Protestants would be concerned. Yeah, it wasn't a very nice thing of the Protestants to do, but this was pre-enlightenment Europe. Religious tolerance was an oxymoron.

In England the sexually perverted King Henry VIII broke from the Holy Catholic Church and stole Catholic land and money out of selfishness. Other murderous English rulers like the bloodthirsty Elizabeth I and the beast Oliver Cromwell (when Cromwell sacked Wessex he killed more people than the Inquisition did throughout its entire history) killed millions of Irish Catholics beacuse of their religion.

That's quite a feat of old Oliver, considering how there was only about one million Irishmen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/games/population/pop_ireland.shtml) in the 1500-1600s.

Though the Inquisition did, apparently, cost far fewer lives than the witch-processes in Protestant Northern Europe.

As a Catholic, I'm certainly no fan of Luther or Calvin. As a secular-humanist, I'm not a fan of the following people:

Fred Phelps and the WBC
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority
Jack Chick
The Opus Dei Organization

And to note: my secular-humanist side outweighs my Catholic side.

Why did the "catholics" butcher so many good Reformers? And you use "two" people to justify this?

Where is Menno Simmons? Theodore Beza? Heidrict Zwingli? John Knox? Peter Valdes? John Wyclif? Jon Huss?

Where is the mention of John Wyclif being exhumed by Catholic's in Brittain in the 14th century for the "heresy" of translating the Bible into English, and post-humously "Burned at the steak" with copies of his translation, just as Nero did to early Christians in Rome?

Where is the mention of Catholics hunting down the Waldensians and Hussites in the 12th to 15th centuries, and burtally slaughtering them in their communes?

Where is the mention of the Remonstrance, where the Catholic Church seized lands from Lord's who sided with the Reformers? (This is where the term "Prostestant" originated from, because it was those in Protest of the Remonstrance against non-Catholic Lord's of Europe, whereby they came to be known as "Protestants", in "Protesting" the Papal levy against their lands).

Why were Calvin and Luther so angered in their message? Because the RCC pushed them that way... The Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was a bloody, vile apostate church. And to the reformers, war was for their very survival.

You mention the "bloodyness" of Elizabeth, yet negate to mention Mary's even bloodier regime before hand.

Don't give me your one-sided hypocrisy...

Both sides were bloody in this time period... And unlike the present Reformed Church, and the Present Catholic Church, we have at least LEARNED from the violence of those times.... Too bad people like you are so damned stupid and blind, to fall back into supporting the errors of that time, and lend a deaf ear to your own apostasy. If you think the RCC was the "innocent victim" you've been blind-sided by the moronic order.

You would do better to look at what was happening, in those dark times, and learn from them.

Ahh..... i LOVE it when someone who actually KNOWS Reformation Europe (got a degree in it myself) opens up a can of whoop ass on a semi informed muppet :D

In England the sexually perverted King Henry VIII broke from the Holy Catholic Church and stole Catholic land and money out of selfishness. Other murderous English rulers like the bloodthirsty Elizabeth I and the beast Oliver Cromwell (when Cromwell sacked Wessex he killed more people than the Inquisition did throughout its entire history) killed millions of Irish Catholics beacuse of their religion.

Well, since the Catholics had acquired that land out of selfishness anyway, I'd say he stole them fair and square. Most monks in Europe at the time were corrupt hedonists and gangsters anyway.

And of course, 'Bloody' Mary Tudor wasn't bloodthirsty in the slightest :rolleyes:

No, history is a lie agreed upon. It is almost never "clear"


History is very rarely agreed upon. Though it is rarely clear.

Yes, Swissguard, exactly please explain how did the Crusaders only try to defend thier faith against the Turkish threat. Was this thier only purpose in going? And which Crusade are you talking about?
Can't wait to here your opinions and facts!

And I have nothing against many Protestants today (except for Jack Chick, Ian Paisely, Pat Robertson, ect.). However I do have a grudge against the leading murderous Protestant "reformers" who caused much bloodshed in Europe and killed millions of faithful Catholics. Luther, Calvin, and various "reformers" like them were monsters.

You mean like the Catholics were, in turn, doing to the Protestants?

You mean like the Catholics and the Lutherans and Calvinists, in turn, did to the Anabaptists?

And so on and so on....

People have always misused religion.

Yes, Swissguard, exactly please explain how did the Crusaders only try to defend thier faith against the Turkish threat. Was this thier only purpose in going? And which Crusade are you talking about?
Can't wait to here your opinions and facts!

The Glorious crusades were a just war to recaputre Jerusalem from the Barbarian Turks. In 1095 the Turk invaded the city, and banned helpless Christian pilgrims from their most holy site, even holier than Rome. The Turks also began a killing spree against Christians in Jerusalem, and burnt down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the most Sacred Church in the world. Blessed Pope Urban II did not want his Christian breathen to be completely annihilated by the Turkish menace, and so declared a crusade to liberate the oppressed citizens of Jerusalem.

Also, the Arabs were threatening to invade Europe and the Christian Byzantine empire was under assault by Islamists so the crusades were not only a war for religious freedom but a war in self-defence. Without the crusades the Islamists may have invaded Europe and imposed their faith upon it, destroying Christendom forevor.

Where is the mention of John Wyclif being exhumed by Catholic's in Brittain in the 14th century for the "heresy" of translating the Bible into English, and post-humously "Burned at the steak" with copies of his translation, just as Nero did to early Christians in Rome?.

Kind of like John Calvin did to Servetus and his Bibles.

You mention the "bloodyness" of Elizabeth, yet negate to mention Mary's even bloodier regime before hand.

Mary killed 300 Protestants, Bloody Elizabeth killed thousands of Catholics.

I could say many more. However, it becomes clear that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Protestant "reformers" were violent and wanted to mass kill off the Catholics of the time. John Calvin had many innocent Catholics burned at the stake, and Martin Luther told Protestant princes to loot and pillage monerstaries and abbeys.

In England the sexually perverted King Henry VIII broke from the Holy Catholic Church and stole Catholic land and money out of selfishness. Other murderous English rulers like the bloodthirsty Elizabeth I and the beast Oliver Cromwell (when Cromwell sacked Wessex he killed more people than the Inquisition did throughout its entire history) killed millions of Irish Catholics beacuse of their religion.

History is clear. The Catholics were victims of the reformists and no matter how much people try to hide it today the own words of the reformists speak for themesevles.

Actually, ol' Hank the 8th did it so he could divorce his wife.

Yes, Protestants were bad in their own way, however during the time of the Reformation, the Church was at its most corrupt. Luther was right, the monastaries (many of them, anyway) were dens of iniquity. Some monasteries had their own brothels.

Let's just stop all the "who did what to whom" arguments and try to get along instead of pointing fingers. Sure, it's less exciting, but then wouldn't it be what Jesus would actually want?

Defensor Fidei?

No, this reeks of [NS]Commando*


*Insert numbers 2-8

The Glorious crusades were a just war to recaputre Jerusalem from the Barbarian Turks. In 1095 the Turk invaded the city, and banned helpless Christian pilgrims from their most holy site, even holier than Rome. The Turks also began a killing spree against Christians in Jerusalem, and burnt down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the most Sacred Church in the world. Blessed Pope Urban II did not want his Christian breathen to be completely annihilated by the Turkish menace, and so declared a crusade to liberate the oppressed citizens of Jerusalem.

Also, the Arabs were threatening to invade Europe and the Christian Byzantine empire was under assault by Islamists so the crusades were not only a war for religious freedom but a war in self-defence. Without the crusades the Islamists may have invaded Europe and imposed their faith upon it, destroying Christendom forevor.

Historian Raymond of Agiles described the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099:

"Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins."

Some spunk in them Christian defenders of the faith. If the Christians did that, how bad must it not have been under those barbarian Turks?

Also, the Arabs were threatening to invade Europe and the Christian Byzantine empire was under assault by Islamists so the crusades were not only a war for religious freedom but a war in self-defence. Without the crusades the Islamists may have invaded Europe and imposed their faith upon it, destroying Christendom forevor.

This seems to suggest to me that the crusades were in part to protect the Byzantine Empire. I think you forget the long-standing fissure between Catholic Christianity and Byzantine, Orthodox Christianity. The two sides didn't get along very well. In fact, during one of the crusades the Doge of Venice was so divided against the Byzantine orthodoxy that he sacked Constantinople on the way to the Jerusalem (in fact, I'm not even sure if he made it there). For decades later Venice controlled Constantinople. Not exactly something you do to the empire you’re trying to protect.

And you’re right that the papacy was afraid of the strategic disadvantage that would result from the loss of the near east from the Christian cultures. And rightly so, when Constantinople finally fell, it was only luck, a few very good diplomats and one very wet summer that stopped the Turks from marching from the Byzantines to all of Europe in the 1520s-30s.

But, the crusades were hardly out of love for the Byzantines.

<snip>
Commando[2 - 7], stop creating nations. They're just going to be deleted again. You have been declared Delete on Sight, so you're just wasting your own time as well as ours.

Go away.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)