• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel”

      Seems spot on. God created universe. Creates hell as ETERNAL punishment. Creates rules on how to get into hell. Creates humans knowing many will do to hell.

      God is a soulless cunt. Or he would be, if any of the above made any kind of sense.

      • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Again, that’s a common opinion for a circlejerking atheist Internet forum. It’s not at all an acceptable position for a cleric of the Church.

        Luther was a priest who presumed to correct the Christian Church on matters of the faith. He sounds like a fifteen year old neckbeard who has his head squarely ensconced in his own ass.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          To be fair, one of the big things he “presumed to correct” the church on was indulgences, which I think even the Catholic Church is now like, “yeah, that was bad…”

          • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, and I never argued otherwise. The fact that he was able to point out an obviously unjust and despicable practice doesn’t detract from his horrible and unconscionable teachings on other subjects.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              But how do his teachings compare to others of the time, especially the Catholic Church? If you try to apply 21st Century morality to 16th Century ideas, you are bound to find ideas to consider “unconscionable.” People at large did some absolutely fucked up shit in the past, but in their times much of what they did was a societal norm

              • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Other people also having fucked up opinions at the time also don’t justify the truly fucked up opinions and teachings of one specific person.

                • protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  The social norms and cultural context of the time absolutely matter when you’re reviewing history

                  • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    the act of trying to justify or judge the actions of a someone from 5 centuries ago is doomed to failure.

                    Sorry, but that’s horseshit. Teaching something like this:

                    If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.

                    is an objectively reprehensible stance regardless of the cultural context. The rejection of morality, conscience, and Christian teaching by an ordained priest is absolutely worthy of judgment, and the fact that he lived 500 years ago doesn’t change that a bit.