The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Blog Archive

Friday 11 December 2009

Elena on Martin Luther

Oh Dear!

It seems I can't agree with Mr, Luther!! I am very ignorant but know enough to know that it is very serious to disagree with Mr. Luther! I am sitting here laughing rather nervously because I realize my poor and dear husband Mr. Haven is basically saying exactly the same things that Mr. King and Mr. Calvin say in these texts which surely are not enough to judge or understand them but at a first glance and a synthesis of his posture it is clear this is the crux of the matter! It is wonderful to meet you again Mr. Luther. Meeting you at school in my teens was not nearly as exciting as meeting you in my fifties!


Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) initiated the Protestant Reformation.[1] As a priest and theologyprofessor, he confronted indulgencesalesman Johann Tetzel with his The Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. Luther strongly disputed their claim that freedom from God's punishment of sin could be purchased with money. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand ofPope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Edict of Wormsmeeting in 1521 resulted in hisexcommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor. Martin Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith inJesus as redeemer from sin. His theologychallenged the authority of the pope of theRoman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge[2] and opposedsacerdotalism by considering all baptised Christians to be a holy priesthood.[3] Those who identify with Luther's teachings are called Lutherans.
His translation of the Bible into the language of the people (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, causing a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture. It fostered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation,[4] and influenced the translation into English of the King James Bible.[5] His hymns inspired the development of singing in churches.[6] His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage, allowing Protestant priests to marry.[7]
Much scholarly debate has focused on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that the Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazisfrom 1933 to 1945.[8] As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.[9]



E-----Wow! It’s as if he’d been the channel for everything both great and terrible!


M.L. King:  Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel ... For baptism does not make men free in body and property, but in soul; and the gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who, of their own free will, do what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4 [:32–37]. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others — of Pilate and Herod — should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, want to make the goods of other men common, and keep their own for themselves. Fine Christians they are! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure.[79]


E----This is where we separate Mr. King! All goods are common to all! It is not because we are communists but because we are one family! One people. One humanity! How we are going to share justly in the pie is what needs resolving. How are we going to work together so that we all rise in our humanity is the question.


Luther justified his opposition to the rebels on three grounds. First, in choosing violence over lawful submission to the secular government, they were ignoring Christ's counsel to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"; St. Paul had written in his epistle to the Romans 13:1-7 that all authorities are appointed by God and therefore should not be resisted. This reference from the Bible forms the foundation for the doctrine known as the Divine Right of Kings, or, in the German case, the divine right of the princes. Second, the violent actions of rebelling, robbing, and plundering placed the peasants "outside the law of God and Empire," so they deserved "death in body and soul, if only as highwaymen and murderers." Lastly, Luther charged the rebels with blasphemy for calling themselves "Christian brethren" and committing their sinful acts under the banner of the Gospel.


E-----We come close again here but not too close! Yes, violence is not justifiable but law is! You gave up studying law but I haven't given up the law. Lawfully returning our common property to our common good is not violence. It is precisely rendering unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's! There are no divine rights of Kings any longer. There are divine rights of each individual and the community as one. Second, robbing and plundering is an aspect of violence but rebelling is a necessary step to every movement. To oppose the status quo is to free our selves from what binds us in a fixed position and everything must change to stay alive. What was right in your time is not right today, what is right today will not be right in the future, we must be open to change so that change is willing transformation and doesn't need to adopt violent forms.



Without Luther's backing for the uprising, many rebels laid down their weapons; others felt betrayed. Their defeat by the Swabian League at the Battle of Frankenhausen on 15 May 1525, followed by Müntzer’s execution, brought the revolutionary stage of the Reformation to a close.[81] Thereafter, radicalism found a refuge in the anabaptistmovement and other sects, while Luther's Reformation flourished under the wing of the secular powers.[82]
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)