AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

---

That doesn't sound like a marriage. It sounds like a proud bride who won't admit her wrongs until she's divorced her groom.

He didn't say either of those things. Or even imply them.

I have the same question as Derm in past threads also. It's been a question danced around on this board before with squishy answers.

dermdoc said:

---

So are you implying that anyone outside the Catholic Church is damned?

And you are advocating executing Protestant "heretics"?

---

I don't get to make the choice on who is damned and who isn't. The lawmaker is above the law, Christ can save whomever he wills. If he wills to save people who remain obstinately outside of his body, then that is his perfect will.

No, I don't believe most Protestants know what they're doing now (same with Catholics). They chose a church they "vibe" with; they don't bear the same culpability as the ones who broke.

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

---

That doesn't sound like a marriage. It sounds like a proud bride who won't admit her wrongs until she's divorced her groom.

---

Well she better, because divorce isn't possible in a sacrament.

Then you have the same argument style where you accuse someone by (deliberately?) misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they're saying.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So are you implying that anyone outside the Catholic Church is damned?

And you are advocating executing Protestant "heretics"?

---

I did not have, 'we should have murdered everyone who disagreed to preserve the church' on my bingo card either, but here we are. The RCC is the bride of Christ indeed!

---

The preservation of the church isn't in question, that's guaranteed by God himself. 500 years after the reformation there is 1 Catholic Church and many many Protestant sects. What is in question are the salvation of souls.

If we use the logic that killing murderers is both a deterrent to society not to murder, and a prophylactic against the murderer killing again; why not apply that to a heretic?

This line of reasoning is why capital punishment was used against heretics, by the state, which has that authority.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So are you implying that anyone outside the Catholic Church is damned?

And you are advocating executing Protestant "heretics"?

---

I did not have, 'we should have murdered everyone who disagreed to preserve the church' on my bingo card either, but here we are. The RCC is the bride of Christ indeed!

---

The preservation of the church isn't in question, that's guaranteed by God himself. 500 years after the reformation there is 1 Catholic Church and many many Protestant sects. What is in question are the salvation of souls.

If we use the logic that killing murderers is both a deterrent to society not to murder, and a prophylactic against the murderer killing again; why not apply that to a heretic?

---

Why not quote Christ instead of logic-ing your way into such a goofy position?

And why not admit that some reformers were correct, since you've accepted many of their reforms? That's what makes it hubris instead of a mistake.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

---

That doesn't sound like a marriage. It sounds like a proud bride who won't admit her wrongs until she's divorced her groom.

---

Well she better, because divorce isn't possible in a sacrament.

---

Neither is separate and celibate, when her body isn't her own, but untenable positions are almost always supported by poor logic.

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So are you implying that anyone outside the Catholic Church is damned?

And you are advocating executing Protestant "heretics"?

---

I did not have, 'we should have murdered everyone who disagreed to preserve the church' on my bingo card either, but here we are. The RCC is the bride of Christ indeed!

---

The preservation of the church isn't in question, that's guaranteed by God himself. 500 years after the reformation there is 1 Catholic Church and many many Protestant sects. What is in question are the salvation of souls.

If we use the logic that killing murderers is both a deterrent to society not to murder, and a prophylactic against the murderer killing again; why not apply that to a heretic?

---

Why not quote Christ instead of logic-ing your way into such a goofy position?

And why not admit that some reformers were correct, since you've accepted many of their reforms? That's what makes it hubris instead of a mistake.

---

This was really the nature of this whole thread....is there anything that the RCC or other traditions have taken from that period/movement that initiated some positive reforms in other non-reformed traditions?

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So are you implying that anyone outside the Catholic Church is damned?

And you are advocating executing Protestant "heretics"?

---

I did not have, 'we should have murdered everyone who disagreed to preserve the church' on my bingo card either, but here we are. The RCC is the bride of Christ indeed!

---

The preservation of the church isn't in question, that's guaranteed by God himself. 500 years after the reformation there is 1 Catholic Church and many many Protestant sects. What is in question are the salvation of souls.

If we use the logic that killing murderers is both a deterrent to society not to murder, and a prophylactic against the murderer killing again; why not apply that to a heretic?

---

Why not quote Christ instead of logic-ing your way into such a goofy position?

And why not admit that some reformers were correct, since you've accepted many of their reforms? That's what makes it hubris instead of a mistake.

---

The ends don't justify the means, that's morality 101. Some of the reformers were correct. The way they went about it was a larger crime than what they were trying to reform.

I have no clue what's confusing about my logic. We kill murdered to stop them from killing and so society thinks "wow getting killed sucked I better not do that". Why not the same with heretics.

Pre-enlightenment brain: "that's true"
Post-enlightenment brain "hOw Do We KnOw HeReSy Is BaD?"

The reformation movement in the west preceded "the reformation" and in fact that reforming tendency is what lead to a consolidation of power in the papacy. without it, there was little way to bring corrupt local bishops (under local feudal protection) to heel. this doesn't excuse what happened, but it does frame it.

i don't think the issue of fixing corruption in the church justifies schism. what reforms are we talking about here? abuses to ecclesiology, abolition of the priesthood, abuses to the eucharist, novel teaching on soteriology, novel teaching on baptism, etc. etc.? or can we not talk about any of that?

nevermind the resulting fracture and destruction of Christendom, leading to the rise of the totalizing secular state, leading to a secular and materialist worldview where religion and morality are personal opinions and have been banished from the political realm! the damage is ongoing.

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

Zobel said:

---

He didn't say either of those things. Or even imply them.

---

So when he said if the Pope had executed the heretic reformers it would have saved a lot of souls, what did he mean my friend?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

---

That doesn't sound like a marriage. It sounds like a proud bride who won't admit her wrongs until she's divorced her groom.

---

Well she better, because divorce isn't possible in a sacrament.

---

Neither is separate and celibate, when her body isn't her own, but untenable positions are almost always supported by poor logic.

---

Your argument is with Christ not me. I just take my views on divorce from him.

---

You're separate and celibate from the EO, more or less in your own words. You can side step it all you want, but ultimately you have to say you're the ark and they're not. Otherwise your marriage analogy breaks down. That was my point: abusive spouses who divorce or drive everyone away don't get to claim the fullness of faithfulness. Changing later through 'internal reform' is simply justification of your sinfulness rather than repentance. It's a pattern with Rome.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

---

Well you're in luck, because the catholic church still participates in the indulgence economy. You can't buy indulgences now, but they are reward points you have earn. The underpinning theology behind indulgences was never condemned as it is a central part of catholic teaching - that you have to make atonement for your sins even though you are forgiven. Temporal punishment is such a bedrock catholic teaching that indulgences will never go away.

It is completely transactional. Almost islamic like view of judgement.

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

---

That doesn't sound like a marriage. It sounds like a proud bride who won't admit her wrongs until she's divorced her groom.

---

Well she better, because divorce isn't possible in a sacrament.

---

Neither is separate and celibate, when her body isn't her own, but untenable positions are almost always supported by poor logic.

---

Your argument is with Christ not me. I just take my views on divorce from him.

---

You're separate and celibate from the EO, more or less in your own words. You can side step it all you want, but ultimately you have to say you're the ark and they're not. Otherwise your marriage analogy breaks down. That was my point: abusive spouses who divorce or drive everyone away don't get to claim the fullness of faithfulness. Changing later through 'internal reform' is simply justification of your sinfulness rather than repentance. It's a pattern with Rome.

---

I think we're both the Ark, tbh. They have a valid Eucharist, it is hard to be separate from someone when you both consume the body of the one God.

You have a very novel idea of "till death do us part". There's a difference between justifying bad behavior, and saying bad behavior doesn't give someone the right to hit eject.

Zobel said:

---

The reformation movement in the west preceded "the reformation" and in fact that reforming tendency is what lead to a consolidation of power in the papacy. without it, there was little way to bring corrupt local bishops (under local feudal protection) to heel. this doesn't excuse what happened, but it does frame it.

i don't think the issue of fixing corruption in the church justifies schism. what reforms are we talking about here? abuses to ecclesiology, abolition of the priesthood, abuses to the eucharist, novel teaching on soteriology, novel teaching on baptism, etc. etc.? or can we not talk about any of that?

nevermind the resulting fracture and destruction of Christendom, leading to the rise of the totalizing secular state, leading to a secular and materialist worldview where religion and morality are personal opinions and have been banished from the political realm! the damage is ongoing.

---

The papal revolution preceded all of what we're talking about. The papacy was leading the west into secularism with the scholastic movement and universities, which the pope freed from local episcopal control of his own accord (Aristotle being studied contrary to local episcopal preference - Tom Holland's Dominion references this, and I'd throw in aquinas' theology too). The reformation may be part of it but it comes in after the great schism.

I'm not justifying everything from the reformation but it's worth asking how long scholars nailed theses to a door before saying Martin Luther was doing something extraordinary. It's worth asking why Rome gladly accepted indulgences without quarrel to build up cathedrals before deciding well after (it took what, eight years? Before Luther was excommunicated, and longer before this doctrine was changed) that maybe there was an issue.

We can go on about denying elements of the Eucharist to laity, or uneducated priests not knowing the rites, but much of the reformation reflects the poor organization and practice of the Roman church. Why are priests expected to be celibate? Because early practice was to pass along offices and possessions to children.

We cannot exempt a 'kill first, ask questions later' Roman church from inquiry and accountability. Schism was often not the choice of those who initially critiqued practice; it is as much an outgrowth of extra-christian doctrine of the papacy.

Luther's disciples? Yeah, way off the reservation and we're paying the price for it. But again, who's available to call a council if the papacy claims that right exclusively? If we revisit the Christian episcopal structure, bishops are free to break communion with those in error until they are restored. Why didn't Rome simply do that? This is far more natural and reasonable to the church than what Rome has pursued.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

---

Well you're in luck, because the catholic church still participates in the indulgence economy. You can't buy indulgences now, but they are reward points you have earn. The underpinning theology behind indulgences was never condemned as it is a central part of catholic teaching - that you have to make atonement for your sins even though you are forgiven. Temporal punishment is such a bedrock catholic teaching that indulgences will never go away.

It is completely transactional. Almost islamic like view of judgement.

---

Yes, indulgences are fine. It's the selling of them that is wrong.

You couldn't buy indulgences now, or indulgences then, licitly. Bad people did bad things.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

The reformation didn't reform the church, it tried to create its own

---

This is not at all what Luther's objective was. He wanted an academic debate that really was brought on by the sale of indulgences. Obviously that wasn't all of it. There was then widespread printing of Luther's work and the rest is history.

I am curious the idea that Catholics may lack humility as it relates to theology, doctrine, and sound practice of them. As I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that any tradition is off base somewhere and we should all be inwardly evaluating how we live our lives personally, relationally and ecclesiastically in the light of the gospel of Christ. Do Catholics and EO essentially see their organizations as perfectly run?

---

Perfectly run? Far from it. To use the marriage example again, my wife isn't perfect; I'm far from perfect; but that doesn't give either of us license to leave. If there's something wrong with the marriage, we fix it. We don't leave, we commit to making it better.

The trinity is the only perfect. The church qua church is perfect because it is the body of Christ; with himself at its head.

---

Is that how the RCC interprets its own history, like with Luther and those burned at the stake throughout time? Or the schism with the east? Everyone else bailed on the marriage? Sounds more like someone with Borderline personality disorder than the bride.

---

Nah. I view the orthodox and Catholics as both still being married but living in separate houses, but celibate.

---

That doesn't sound like a marriage. It sounds like a proud bride who won't admit her wrongs until she's divorced her groom.

---

Well she better, because divorce isn't possible in a sacrament.

---

Neither is separate and celibate, when her body isn't her own, but untenable positions are almost always supported by poor logic.

---

Your argument is with Christ not me. I just take my views on divorce from him.

---

You're separate and celibate from the EO, more or less in your own words. You can side step it all you want, but ultimately you have to say you're the ark and they're not. Otherwise your marriage analogy breaks down. That was my point: abusive spouses who divorce or drive everyone away don't get to claim the fullness of faithfulness. Changing later through 'internal reform' is simply justification of your sinfulness rather than repentance. It's a pattern with Rome.

---

I think we're both the Ark, tbh. They have a valid Eucharist, it is hard to be separate from someone when you both consume the body of the one God.

You have a very novel idea of "till death do us part". There's a difference between justifying bad behavior, and saying bad behavior doesn't give someone the right to hit eject.

---

So they can take communion at your church or no? You have a novel idea of "marriage" that Christ doesn't recognize.

Zobel said:

---

i can't answer for him but his post doesn't mean "we need to kill modern protestants" and doesn't say anything about "everyone outside the church is damned". it means just what it says.

my take on what he said is that the effects of the reformation on the grand scale include the collapse of Christendom and the rise of the secular, materialist worldview. the baseline understanding of the Good - the purpose we all strive for at the societal level - is no longer salvation or even the pagan virtues, but animalistic fulfillment of our desires: freedom to do what we want, and prosperity to enable it, even if what we want is bad for us. this materialistic self-indulgence, demonic giving of knowledge and technology to enable it ("reason") is behind every fall. we're reliving the cautionary tale of the apple, of prometheus, pandora, the watchers, of babel.

if this had been prevented (i don't know that it was possible, but this is a counterfactual right?) millions of souls would have been saved - absolutely. millions of deaths in warfare. literal billions of abortions perhaps could have been prevented.

he didn't say anything about today's protestants, but the protestant reformers.

---

Okay. So you think the Reformers should have been executed? For the greater good?

And that is Christ like?

Should Christ have executed all the Pharisees? Because they were obviously heretical as concerned His teachings?

As you might guess, I disagree.

scholasticism and universities arent equivalent don't and can't produce the secular worldview. the disjunction between the "two spheres" worldview and the totalizing secular state only happens once you sever the state from the church. and that can only happen when religion becomes a matter of personal conviction, a private matter, versus a public one. that is the entire raison d'etre of the reformation in a nutshell.

i think you have misunderstood my comments about abuses. the abuses to ecclesiology, to the priesthood, to the eucharist, to baptism, etc are all indictments of Protestantism and are all products of so-called "reform".

i'm not advocating for burning heretics at the stake. i'm advocating that everyone should look at the reformation and say "wow this was a terrible thing for Christendom and the world, the fruits are demonic."

you can't say the point of the reformation was to root out corruption when the actual outcome was to destroy the unity of the church, create local churches subordinated to their state governments (and ultimately state governments completely severed from them), and produce radically different and mutually exclusive versions of Christianity.

yes - Rome was bad, the path the papacy took to fight corruption was wrong, and produced all kinds of problems - including the first major schism in 1054. so sure, the reformation itself is the fruit of schism. but the reformation proper was the proximate cause to so much evil. it is so much worse.

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i can't answer for him but his post doesn't mean "we need to kill modern protestants" and doesn't say anything about "everyone outside the church is damned". it means just what it says.

my take on what he said is that the effects of the reformation on the grand scale include the collapse of Christendom and the rise of the secular, materialist worldview. the baseline understanding of the Good - the purpose we all strive for at the societal level - is no longer salvation or even the pagan virtues, but animalistic fulfillment of our desires: freedom to do what we want, and prosperity to enable it, even if what we want is bad for us. this materialistic self-indulgence, demonic giving of knowledge and technology to enable it ("reason") is behind every fall. we're reliving the cautionary tale of the apple, of prometheus, pandora, the watchers, of babel.

if this had been prevented (i don't know that it was possible, but this is a counterfactual right?) millions of souls would have been saved - absolutely. millions of deaths in warfare. literal billions of abortions perhaps could have been prevented.

he didn't say anything about today's protestants, but the protestant reformers.

---

Okay. So you think the Reformers should have been executed? For the greater good?

And that is Christ like?

---

I'll hop in here. Yes, provided that greater good was achievable by their execution. You cannot do something wrong in order to achieve a good; however you can do something neutral in order to do so, provided the good is intended and achievable.

Murder is never good, it's a tautology. Killing is sometimes permitted, and sometimes necessary. In this case I believe executing a heretic is morally permissible given the above are satisfied.

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i can't answer for him but his post doesn't mean "we need to kill modern protestants" and doesn't say anything about "everyone outside the church is damned". it means just what it says.

my take on what he said is that the effects of the reformation on the grand scale include the collapse of Christendom and the rise of the secular, materialist worldview. the baseline understanding of the Good - the purpose we all strive for at the societal level - is no longer salvation or even the pagan virtues, but animalistic fulfillment of our desires: freedom to do what we want, and prosperity to enable it, even if what we want is bad for us. this materialistic self-indulgence, demonic giving of knowledge and technology to enable it ("reason") is behind every fall. we're reliving the cautionary tale of the apple, of prometheus, pandora, the watchers, of babel.

if this had been prevented (i don't know that it was possible, but this is a counterfactual right?) millions of souls would have been saved - absolutely. millions of deaths in warfare. literal billions of abortions perhaps could have been prevented.

he didn't say anything about today's protestants, but the protestant reformers.

---

Okay. So you think the Reformers should have been executed? For the greater good?

And that is Christ like?

Should Christ have executed all the Pharisees? Because they were obviously heretical as concerned His teachings?

As you might guess, I disagree.

---

Doc, you don't think Judas is in hell, even though Christ himself calls him the son of Hell. I know where you're coming from, but your disagreements seemed to be based more on your own personal interpretation of Christian morality.