Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Luther Was 100% an Enlightenment Figure

Protestantism and Lutheranism were both emanations of Sophism. 

Sophism, being OG deception worship, always cloaks itself as something else. It's more than happy to try on various disguises. 

"The saying "reason is the Devil's greatest whore" was his. If we followed what Luther wanted we'd have a Christian theocracy of sorts without all the papist idolatry and corruption. Enlightenment skepticism wouldn't have developed. Married clergy weeds out all the catholic gays."

First problem: Christianity was an emanation of Sophism in the first place. Protestantism was merely an upgrade. "Not enough Sophism. Lies more Sophism." 

Second problem: Sophism, relying heavily as it does on logical fallacies, plain works better if (futilely) attempting to use logic is high status. E.g. way easier to trick folk if they're constantly getting halfway there on their own in an attempt to one-up their neighbours.

If you go full Al-Ghazali, the parasitism networks ossify and the polity stagnates. If you ban the scholar caste entirely you don't get a population defenceless against bad scholarship, you ban the Sophists themselves. Sophism prunes its own shoots and replaces the system with one which rewards unimaginative, talentless thugs. Haha, oops. Way to blast your own foot with both barrels, Luther. Their defencelessness doesn't matter if your non-scholar rivals can ensure you don't exist...

Regardless, due to the first problem, America is very much a Christian theocracy, it merely doesn't call itself Christian so it can ignore the friction-inducing impurities in the Bible without inconvenient pests bringing them up all the time. Sophists gonna Soph. If it were instead a Lutheran theocracy it would be basically the same place except poor and thus even weaker.


Reminder that if you're not a lying sack of shit, you don't nail your dirty laundry to your parent's door. 

If you don't like how your dad runs the place, then talk to your dad about it. His house, his rules - try to convince him your idea for the rules is better. If he won't see your side of the argument, then stapling your argument to the front door is not exactly going to make the scales fall from his eyes. "Now that you've poked holes in my lacquer, I see your point!" "I can't believe I didn't try vandalism earlier. It's always so charming."

Bro, just move out.
When Luther did move out but threw a childish tantrum in the process, he revealed he was a narcissist. Developmentally arrested. The only deeply held principle behind the stunt was, "I need narcissistic supply." The Church didn't pander enough to his grandiosity. That's the only thing he was for-real mad about.


jason said...

Have you actually read the 95 thesis? They are a defense of the pope. Therein Luther argues that Tetzel the indulgence seller can't really be selling them by the pope'a order because the pope is a good guy.

Alrenous said...

Sophism always works via incremental decay. Pace and lead is a rhetorical technique. http://www.isegoria.net/2011/09/the-fossils-of-past-power-grabs/

If it's a defence of the pope, why did the pope excommunicate Luther? Was the pope a hapless childlike hostage, or was it in fact an attack on the pope's interests?

jason said...

Because when Luther found put the pope really did authorize the selling of indulgences he began to rebel against the pope. But at the time of the 95 thesis he was still a loyal papist.

Alrenous said...

Ah, so Luther was a hapless naive child who shouldn't have been let out of the house without mommy or daddy holding his hand.

I buy it.