Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Martin Luther by AAtheist Martin Luther by AAtheist
Martin Luther was one of the most influential theologians EVER.

If you like this kind of thing please take a look at my facebook page at [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:icontruegrimreaper64:
TrueGrimReaper64 Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
As much of a christian as he was, I think his ideas were the first steps towards the truth. He was the first one who questioned the church and won. He at least let common Christians actually READ the bible, instead of just telling them what they should believe because "the bible said so". It goes down the line from Luther, to the Deists of the Enlightenment, to the intellectuals of the early 20th century, and to the current New Atheist movement, which makes this quote really ironic if you think about it.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Aug 17, 2014
LoL I like that line of reasoning. And I certainly wont deny that he was definitely a very intelligent and educated man. I'm just not a fan of some of his reasoning's :)
Reply
:icontruegrimreaper64:
TrueGrimReaper64 Featured By Owner Edited Aug 17, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Yeah, you really have to take what he said with a grain of salt. He WAS a preacher after all, but at least it was a start, and who knows where we would be today without him.
Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
I have Luther's "Works" on my computer and I went looking for the references you gave below for the quote from the above work.

The one I found that comes closest is from Volume 40, it states, "Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda*, natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow."

* The editor's footnote reads, "In Germanic mythology, Frau Hulda is the name of the leader of a group of elfin creatures who were looked upon as the instigators of good and evil among men. Like them Frau Hulda is of a capricious nature, now friendly, now hostile especially in times when disorder arises among men. She may therefore be regarded as a personification of order and clever reasoning. However, in matters of faith Luther looked upon reason as seductive, hence as 'the devil’s prostitute.'"
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
Keeping up with the idea of Luther's works is difficult, I probably should have just said Erlangen Edition v. 16 Rather than works, which is where I believe the quote comes from. Here is a website that sets them out a bit for you, beggarsallreformation.blogspot…

That same bit of rhetoric was also referenced at least as early as 1928 by 
Jacques Maritain in Three Reformers, and can be found referenced in many other places. I confess I have not read the Erlangen Edition myself, but I do like to make sure there is very little chance that a quote is false before I use it.

I have made mistakes, and I hope that this isn't another one, but I do have reason to believe that it isn't.
Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
Thank you for the kind and informative reply.

I am quoting from Jaroslav Pelikan's edition, which is the standard English work used in most universities. Do you know what works are covered in Erlangen's Edition volume 16? The work I cited was "Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments."

I am interested in finding out the exact quote, because there is debate on whether Luther believed in fideism or not. I have read a far share of Luther and would contend he isn't against reason. He was very skeptical about the medieval scholastic tradition, however. Combined with his extreme bluntness, one could find some select quotes that could be misleading.

Calvin, on the other hand, was much more precise, and his writings on the relationship between faith and reason are fascinating.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner May 4, 2014
I'm afraid I don't know, I believe that the Erlangen Edition is one of the larger collections with 68 German volumes, 38 Latin writings, 18 volumes of letters, and Luther's commentary on Galatians in 3 volumes, mostly published separately.

My personal knowledge of this subject is actually very lacking and I'm sure that yours is much better. I'll be honest I was just looking through random quotes online when I found it, I did check up on it to make sure that there was a good basis to believe he actually said what he was supposed to, but I have not read the original writings myself.
Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner May 4, 2014
Ok, thank you for the help. I will have to see if the Erlangen Edition is online or not.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner May 5, 2014
Unfortunately I don't think it is, I spent quite a while looking for it after your earlier enquiry.
Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner May 5, 2014
Thank you for the labors and sharing your thoughts, it is most kind. Again, the relation of Luther with fideism interests me.

I did look through your webpage and you seem quite passionate about your atheism. If you would ever be interested in a friendly chat/debate about atheism I would be open to it. I have an interest in religion, philosophy and the relationship between faith and reason.

Thank you again.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner May 6, 2014
To be honest I haven't done anything on my facebook page for several months, the problem with discussing atheism is that the arguments for both sides tend to be incredibly repetitive, I believe the arguments for atheism (obviously) and I often find the arguments for religion to be circular and logically fallible, but they very rarely change.

I have been running that page for several years now, and I think that I can honestly count the amount of times I have had a truly interesting debate about the subject on one hand.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkalika12:
kalika12 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
If a man who created a branch of a religion says it and the religious people from now say that it isnīt true,then they are more idiot then him -_-
Reply
:iconlordelthibar:
LordElthibar Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013
I respectfully disagree with Martin Luthor on this point, because many Christians during the time of the Renaissance looked to reason to strengthen their faith. I myself have used reason to strengthen my fait as well.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
Fair enough. However be aware that during the renaissance they had a very different view of the universe, we certainly didn't have a genuine competing theory for the start of the universe, and personally I don't see how anyone looking at the available evidence today can come to the conclusion that god exists. Indeed, there is no more genuine evidence that he exists, than there is evidence that Eric the God eating penguin exists.
Reply
:iconlordelthibar:
LordElthibar Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
Well that is the thing, we have two different world views. Thanks you for your respect towards Christians though. You don't know how grateful I am.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
You're welcome. Anybody who has the good grace to be polite when talking to me deserves the same in reply. Thank you for a convivial conversation :)
Reply
:iconblondbeastboy:
BlondBeastBoy Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy faith has" I think there's a different meaning to it, but you just want to remove the context because you just want to jab at the faith-nutters.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013
Exactly how can context change that quote?

Not to mention that actually the context is pretty consistent. I mean just take a look at some of the other stuff he's said.

“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”

—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.

“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”

—Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156).

Reply
:iconblondbeastboy:
BlondBeastBoy Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013
The way h talks about it feels like he foreshadowed the Cult of Reason, which was a mock religion made of atheist members during the French revolutionary war. The high number of irreligious population in France is owed to them. Also, those quotes were made centuries ago in England. Their dialect and vocabulary has changed over the past 525 years. How do you know the word "reason" had the same meaning it does now back then?
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
First you play "out of context!" as an argument. Then, upon being disproven, you throw wild accusations of a non-existent "cult of reason". Then you blame linguistics.

Here's a novel idea: why don't you, the one making the claim, prove that this is a mistranslation? The original was not English- it was German, which means it was translated at some point. You don't have to be a scholar to do internet research- knock yourself out, and show us why we're wrong.
Reply
:iconblondbeastboy:
BlondBeastBoy Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
"Non-existent 'cult of reason'"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_…

If you won't bother reading it here's a summary: It's the French father of the church of FSM.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2013
It certainly is non-existent today, in France and Europe at large. Face it- you made a really stupid argument in defense of something horrible, and you were wrong. Stop blaming it on stuff like a "cult of reason".
Reply
:iconblondbeastboy:
BlondBeastBoy Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2013
Something horrible? Naw, it was great!
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2013
"Reason is the greatest enemy faith has" is great?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
Are you being serious? Honestly? Look, this is an argument you have lost. Have the good grace to admit it. You picked a flawed position and you didn't do your research before making a ridiculous claim. Maybe next time before you claim different context you should actually LOOK at the context before you do so.
Reply
:iconblondbeastboy:
BlondBeastBoy Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
Sidestepping more than often will eventually trip you.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2013
Sidestepping what? You're completely ridiculous reply? If I replied to every bit of blatantly absurd crap I got, I'd never dig my way out of the shit pile. 

But if you insist. First of all, LOOK UP THE CONTEXT YOURSELF. It's not hard. When you have finally managed to actually do some of your own research, you will realise that this is definitely NOT taken out of context, and is without a doubt directed at reason, meaning the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically. It certainly had fuck all to do with some random cult that didn't even exist until more than 200 years after he died.

And no it is definitely not a mistranslation. Again, before spewing completely random bollocks with absolutely no logical reason, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. Hopefully then I won't have to put up with any more stupid crap.
Reply
:iconblondbeastboy:
BlondBeastBoy Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2013
Dr. Martin Luther King was a good man, though. Don't twist the meaning of his words, he probably thought the racially-motivated "reason" from the white people affected his faith that people would be equal regardless of color or creed.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2013
Again, do some research. I am most definitely not quoting anything by Martin Luther King. This is Martin Luther, born in 1483. 
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontsubodai1:
Tsubodai1 Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2013
This is depressing. I am religious myself, and I hope that this is a misquote, or that if Luther did say this than I hope that he did not believe this his whole life long.

Religion and reason are not incompatible, I think, it is just that religion can be simple and so is a magnet for those looking for a simple explanation. "I don't know? God must have done it!" I have actually gotten into several arguments with fellow believers who seem to want to take this 'easy out' for everything. I am continually depressed by how many people will chalk things up to 'inexplicable, must be god' and then have nothing to say when I successfully explain it.

If legitimate, this quote is something I will add to my list of "retarded statements I wish hadn't come out of a religious person's mouth", along with those remarks a republican candidate made about abortion, everything the WBC has ever said under any circumstances, and other things too numerous to list here.

(P.S.: if it helps establish my credibility, i believe in Natural Selection, am perfectly fine with gay marriage, and wish the Tea Party would stop trying to make religion into a political issue.)
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner May 5, 2013
You established your credibility fine in your first sentence. Unfortunately this is a genuine quote, and it doesn't get better, for a bit more context this is the full quote.

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

To be honest I personally do not believe that reason and religion are completely compatible. For every religion that I have looked at, there has always been at least a few points that cannot be completely accepted with good reason. Simply because there is no reason for those beliefs.
Reply
:icontsubodai1:
Tsubodai1 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2014
"A few points that cannot be completely accepted with good reason"
I would argue that if there is an infinitely powerful and wise being, it would make sense that no amount of reason could show us the entirety of their grand design. Now, a logical contradiction - that is something more worrisome, but perhaps not entirely irreconciliable - i've found at least three over the years that appeared irreconciliable at the time but which i have since reconciled. Nonetheless, here's my from the ground up argument for religion (not any particular religion in this post, mind you, just a religion.):

1) The universe came into being somehow.
2) Saying that something else created the universe - be it intelligent or a force of nature - only shifts the problem further back unless that thing existed beyond any possible concept of both time and cause and effect. Thus, something exists that is both eternal and beyond cause and effect.
3) If said thing were not sentient, then the universe is random. There are many very complex arguments for why this is not correct, if you wish to examine them, I believe CS Lewis did some good writing on the subject from a philosophical and moral standpoint - for now I will say that the universe is not entirely random. I recognize this is the weakest step in my argument as outlined here, but i choose to accept the arguments put forth by others on this point which i have examined at length. I suggest you to do likewise - after all, whether hell heaven or oblivion, there can be no higher priority than one's eternal disposition.
4) Something which put the universe in motion would likely have some interest in everything within it, or else those things would not have been included in the grand design.
5) Therefore, there is a being beyond cause and effect with the ability to create the universe and interest in humanity. I choose to call this being god.
6) Since said god has an interest in humanity, then it is logical to learn more about his designs. Either he wishes them to remain undiscovered at this time in which case we have no course of action open to us, or he has revealed them. 
7) Since he has revealed them, then even if a religion or all religions are incorrect, there are likely elements of the truth buried among them which we should seek out.

That's the best i have right now.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
I am sorry, but I see no logical progression in your argument, you give a point and then state that the next point therefore is an inescapable conclusion, but I just don't see it. In fact many of the points are completely unrelated, with no firm basis in logic or reason.

1) The universe came into being somehow.
1, yes the universe came into being.

2) Saying that something else created the universe - be it intelligent or a force of nature - only shifts the problem further back unless that thing existed beyond any possible concept of both time and cause and effect. Thus, something exists that is both eternal and beyond cause and effect.
2, I agree, you are shifting problem further along, but why are you doing this? This completely ignores many constants in logical argument, the most prominent of which is Occam's Razor, that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. Now this does NOT mean the simplest answer is correct, only that making assumptions in an argument leaves your argument weak. You give no basis for saying that there is a creator, rather than the universe came into existence for another reason. There are many other theories which account for the universe just as well as the creation theory, and many of them make at least one less assumption. As such I have to reject this point as flawed.

3) If said thing were not sentient, then the universe is random. There are many very complex arguments for why this is not correct, if you wish to examine them, I believe CS Lewis did some good writing on the subject from a philosophical and moral standpoint - for now I will say that the universe is not entirely random. I recognize this is the weakest step in my argument as outlined here, but i choose to accept the arguments put forth by others on this point which i have examined at length. I suggest you to do likewise - after all, whether hell heaven or oblivion, there can be no higher priority than one's eternal disposition.
3, I have read many of C.S. Lewis' writings and he has the same problem. He states a point and then says that it automatically leads to a conclusion, but he leaves out many of the steps in the process. I agree, the universe is not entirely random, I don't see how it could be, but this does not mean that a creator is the reason for order. You have left out a step that points out why a creator is necessary for a universe to be non-random. Further you also state that if the creator was non-sentient then the universe would be random, but you give no reason for this. Many creatures on the face of the planet create incredible constructs that are awe inspiring in their beauty and order. And yet they are not sentient, they are simply reacting to pressures in their environment. If a creator DID exist, how do you know it is not simply reacting to pressures in its environment? 

4) Something which put the universe in motion would likely have some interest in everything within it, or else those things would not have been included in the grand design. 
4, this is simply not true, a being could have started the universe and still not care if we exist. I have personally gone to the beach and played in the sand, creating many structures and shapes, and castles that I thought were pretty, but at no point did I care about the environment I was shaping for the bacteria within the sand. You are talking about a creature that created a universe more vast than you can possibly imagine, in that universe a single solar system is smaller than we would perceive an atom to be. In effect you are saying that because somebody created a planet they therefore care about creatures that have evolved on an atom within that planet. There is no logical progression for this conclusion. Yes it is a possibility that the creator cares about the creatures on an atom, but it is a small and remote one, that is in no way an inevitability.


5) Therefore, there is a being beyond cause and effect with the ability to create the universe and interest in humanity. I choose to call this being god.
5, I am sorry, your argument does not support your conclusion.

6) Since said god has an interest in humanity, then it is logical to learn more about his designs. Either he wishes them to remain undiscovered at this time in which case we have no course of action open to us, or he has revealed them. 
6, if a god did exist then I agree that it would be pertinent to learn his designs.

7) Since he has revealed them, then even if a religion or all religions are incorrect, there are likely elements of the truth buried among them which we should seek out.
7, in point six you said "...or he has revealed them." Yet here you say that he has. You have not described the method he used to do so, and I do not think you could find a single method that would find universal acceptance, as such I would have to say that for a being beyond cause and effect with the ability to create the universe and an interest in humanity he mustn't be trying very hard. It created the universe, surely he can get a message to one planet that cannot be confused.
Reply
:iconinfernalone666:
InfernalOne666 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
this is the kind of people that dwell in religion - how are more and more people NOT finding this out?!
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Scary isn't it?
Reply
:iconziggyman:
Ziggyman Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2012  Professional General Artist
Well, he was right about that. Against reason, faith is a false virtue.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2012
Absolutely.
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Any man who utters this quote deserves a swift kick to the nuts
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2012
The first part aside, its actually pretty accurate.
Reply
:iconjedi-guardian:
Jedi-Guardian Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2012
Sweet sexy Universe, yes!
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2012
That is a fantastic way of expressing yourself! I'm going to start using that now :worship:
Reply
:iconmrplaid81:
MrPlaid81 Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Amen!
Reply
:icont-subgenius:
t-subgenius Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2012
Reason is a whore, only it cares nothing for wealth, power, or prestige. Reason may not be pretty, and it certainly does not whisper the sweet nothings in your ear that faith does, but I think thats the appeal. It simple trots down the most logical path oblivious to everything else; even if its leading you to uncomfortable truths that will shatter your world view.

At least its not infested with nasty crotch rot like faith is. That whore may be fancied up and a smooth talker, but damn if it isnt rotten to the core.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2012
Nicely said.
Reply
:icondisestablish:
Disestablish Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2012
The world's earliest way to say
"Stick your fingers in your ear and go Lalalalalalalalala"
Reply
:icontrickycreature:
TrickyCreature Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Hahahaha1 SO true!
Reply
:icondisestablish:
Disestablish Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2012
Thank you good person who's sex is vastly confusing to me.
You a boy? You a girl?
Do I care??
Nah, doesn't matter to me.
Reply
:iconaatheist:
AAtheist Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2012
LOL
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2012
Personable fellow, I'm sure.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 389 × 547




Details

Submitted on
June 23, 2012
Image Size
126 KB
Resolution
389×547
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,196
Favourites
29 (who?)
Comments
63
Downloads
15
×