When we think critically about monsters, we tend to classify them as personifications of what we fear
20More
How Modern Life Is Like a Zombie Onslaught - NYTimes.com - 12 views
-
-
Sheldon T on 09 Apr 13This is a possible reason, but not completely accurate, in my opinion. "The Walking Dead" is a show about apocalypse survivors, not a zombie killing maniac. Perhaps people were also simply curious about how to survive an apocalypse (or just looking for good entertainment). Also, while zombie killing may be "uncomplicated" and repetitive, our lives aren't usually like that. We encounter challenges, and solve them either individually or in a group. I think the author got this aspect of his thesis wrong. Modern life may be like slaughtering zombies, but it's not as "uncomplicated" as he makes it sound.
-
-
-
The author implies that you will always be doing the same thing for your entire life, but this isn't really true. Unlike a zombie apocalypse in which the future seems really bleak, real life has many opportunities that come along: promotions, love, vacationing, retirement, etc. I think the author is overlooking the fact that not everybody works in a cubicle or does other boring and repetitive work. Not all 5.3 million people were, that's for sure. If people were relating to the show, it was because of the challenges faced by the survivors, not the onslaught of zombies.
-
-
According to this author, the reason we have a renewed and growing fascination with zombies can be understood when we look at modern life. As we begin our look at the Industrial Revolution and Modernization, reflect on whether or not you agree with this author's point of view. Add at least two comments or responses to other student comments.
- ...15 more comments...
-
One of my favorite points made by this author is that in popular culture it is possible to relate our everyday lives and Zombie killing. Day after day, people slave away at desks, writing out code, responding to emails, and doing things over and over again and getting paid to do so. In a post-apocalyptic state we find the exact same concept, except you are being paid in being able to live. You take zombie after zombie down, but at the end of the day there are still more left. Never will the war be over, never will there be no more zombies. At the end of the work day, you know that tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, you will have to come back and continue what you just finished. What are we in this society? Are we the zombies, or are we something worse? Are we the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world?
-
I enjoyed another point made by the author. The Twilight series was made into film and the original film was released in 2008. Since then, many other series have popped up. True Blood also started in 2008, and as a fan of the show I advocate for its viewing much more than Twilight simply because it can tackle real life issues if need be. However, popular culture has since decided to move its focus to Zombies. In 2009, Zombieland, starring an Oscar winning cast, was released and was hugely successful because of its no holds barred look at gruesome Zombie comedy. The Walking Dead started in 2010, starting a huge fan base that continues to grow. Warm Bodies took a couple young actors and made a zombie flick out of it, that actually used Romance as a tool to win over the audience. What is the difference between Zombies and Vampires? In the article, the author states that the primary difference is that people can have a favorite vampire, or even identify with their problems. A zombie is just something you can kill. I agree with this, however as Warm Bodies (2013) showed me, there can be an identification in things such as Zombies.
-
Personally I don't see the fascination of zombies, though it's interesting as to what this author said as to the reason why it's popular. Simply because it's similar to our day to day life except it's a way less complicated version such. For instance what he said, "Zombie killing is philosophically similar to reading and deleting 400 work e-mails on Monday morning". I see what he means by that in a sense that it's a drag and redundant. Though I reckon you should get a job in the field you're interested in so that sort of thing could be avoided. We don't live in the days in which the only occupation is farming, we have plenty of choices. Plus zombie attacks are something we can't avoid, frankly if you don't like the work you do in your job, then you can always find another. It may not be easy to do so, but in the end it's really up to you as to what you want to do. "Zombies are just so easy to kill." That is really the only reason I can possibly understand the affection for them. Sometimes, for me at least, there are things I just want to get rid of. That for instance are bugs, though the only problem is that I don't even want to go anywhere near them to start with, so getting rid of them is kind of a hard task to do. Therefore if I had pick out a relationship between people's interest in zombies, my guess would be that zombies are something that can just die (or technically die again since they are dead) and we won't even feel bad about them because they aren't really 'human' nor 'alive'.
-
I agree with the author in that we are all communal zombies. Nowadays, everyone seems to be very much attached to their computers and iphones as if life cannot go on without them. Technological advancements have indeed helped us and made life easier in many ways, but at the same time they corrupt the minds. It is up to the individual to get rid of these bad habits and take control of his life rather than being controlled by machines.
-
I think the reason why monsters, vampires and zombies have flourished is because movie makers want to tap into the likes of the audience. In this way, they can make big money while the movie is still popular; and they can always reverse the trend as the market changes. This is evidenced by the revival of the Swedish film "Let the Right One In" due to the success of Twilight.
-
"The Walking Dead" on AMC is benefitting from record breaking ratings, and the audience of the show seem more interested than ever in the concept of zombies. Clemson University Professor Sarah Lauro states that there is a direct correlation between the "zombie culture" and capitalism and the economy. She has been researching about the zombie culture for years, and she has discovered that the rise in popularity of such culture happens when a large number of people are beginning to get unemployed. Instead of viewing the zombie culture as a type of trend, she believes that it can be more conveniently stated as a metaphor for the way that people are feeling powerless within the system. Not only does modern life relate with zombies due to the fact that it is similar to the act fo repetitively killing zombies, however, I believe it can also be interpreted as a type of "silent protest." People are sick and tired of repetitive daily lives, and want a change from such lifestyle.
-
i agree with his thinking. everyday life if you think about it is so repetitive. what seems like an easy and fun thing to do later comes to run your life. like making your facebook account, it seems like a good idea at first, socializing with friends and al that, but for many people, it becomes a necessity that they must check every hour of the day. to me, everyday life does remind me of zombies. everybody walks around and does the same thing everyday, work, study, life. it keeps pushing at us, and we keep pushing back. although it makes us sound like the survivor fighting the zombie horde, it really does not matter. both the zombies and the survivors are just doing one thing over and over again. zombies try to kill you, you try to kill zombies
-
When I read this article, I found it fascinating of how it examined the psychology underneath our burning addiction of the idea of zombies. However, I think that the author's idea and even our obsession of zombies would not be true if the Industrial Revolution never happened. Before the Industrial Revolution, agriculture and village communities were the dominant life style during that age. The only thing that mattered at that time was to survive and to serve for the greater good (such as helping family, joining the army to serve the king, etc.). This meant that fulfilling oneself's desire was the last priority. When the Industrial Revolution began, products and goods at markets were sold at an affordable price that middle and low classes could afford, increasing the general welfare of the public. With more wealth, people started focusing on their selves instead on relying on others. The point is, before the Industrial Revolution, people had tighter and more social relationships and when they had to face a fear or problem, they usually relied on their community. But now with the industrial revolution passed, everyone relies on technology to solve their problems, which is where zombies come in place. They serve as a self-esteem booster to make people feel themselves better.
-
@James H I strongly agree with you that The Walking Dead is a very efficient example of proving the fact that we want to see our fears conquered. "The Walking Dead" had over 2.5 million views on the first few episodes, which proves the fact that many people really would like to see their fears and problems easily killed
-
The author also states that an alternative reason for the public's immense craving for zombies was because "Zombies are easy to kill." I believe that overanalyzing her point will just add a lot more complexity to the topic. If I just simply think about the reason to why I enjoy playing zombie games and watching zombie shows, its merely because zombies are just so vulnerable. Just like the gratifying feeling you get when you feel multiple buzzes from the mosquito swatter, and when you kill hundreds of zombies with a single machine gun in a survival game, I believe killing numerous extremely-vulnerable zombies just have the same effect. Thus, generating popularity for the "zombie culture."
-
I agree with the metaphor that the author uses to describe the similarity between a zombie and a human. Every day as humans, we establish routines that we repeat on a daily basis. This action is continuous and we tend to never stop. Similarly, the author gave an example of killing a zombie. "IF THERE'S ONE THING we all understand about zombie killing, it's that the act is uncomplicated: you blast one in the brain from point-blank range (preferably with a shotgun). That's Step 1. Step 2 is doing the same thing to the next zombie that takes its place. Step 3 is identical to Step 2, and Step 4 isn't any different from Step 3. Repeat this process until (a) you perish, or (b) you run out of zombies. That's really the only viable strategy."
-
I also agree with the author when he states "But above all, do not assume that the war is over, because it never is. The zombies you kill today will merely be replaced by the zombies of tomorrow." I believe that what the author is trying to say is that in life, every action has a consequence, and there will always be good times as well as hardships. Yet we have to face it with a pinch of salt, because there really isn't anything you can do about it. It is the way life works.
-
"There are slow zombies, and there are fast zombies- that's pretty much the spectrum of zombie diversity." This part actually made me laugh out loud, mostly because of how ridiculously simple and true the sentence is. Zombies in a traditional sense don't really have feelings or minds of their own; their only instincts are to eat, destroy that which cannot be eaten, and to stay alive/undead. There is no actual diversity amongst zombies, unlike in humans. We have such a wide range and spectrum of inner and outer feelings and characteristics that it is entirely possible to be standing in the same room as someone whose qualities are completely opposite to yours. This, I think, is what's so beautiful yet terrible about the human race in general. As the diversity of our species is so great, we have some pretty terrible people, such as serial killers, as well as good people in our world, such as humanitarians. I think that this face of the human race is what helps defines us as humans. The moment we get too lost into technology and stop recognizing this, as Alice Gregory noted, we become the soulless undead ourselves. For a while, we forget who we are just to go online, and we mindlessly consume what we see on the web until we decide that we're bloated and go offline. Talking to someone in real life as they're searching things up is almost like talking to a wall, as they're engrossed in whatever they're doing and won't respond very actively or with much character at all.
-
I found this overall article to be kind of funny, because I wasn't sure what the author was trying to convey through this article. He was just describing about zombies and how our lives seem to focus around it. However, I liked the analogies he made by comparing it to checking our mail inboxes because that was interesting. It gave a general idea of what he was saying about zombies.
-
I disagree with the author when he says that zombies are just so easy to kill. I disagree with that statement because I've seen movies when a zombie has to take more than just putting a bullet to the head to die.
-
@Tom I agree with what you said about vampires and zombies, and how the previous movies/tv shows caused another to make a story out of it. Like with The Vampire Diaries, it came out in 2009, a year after Twilight. Like Twilight, it was about a human girl who fell in love with a vampire. I think what producers/directors are trying to do nowadays is change a few plots and characters and other important factors of a previous film/tv series that was popular and try to gain their audience.
-
I kind of disagree with the author when he says that killing zombies is very similar to our daily lives. For example its repetitive, I don't think that in life all you do is the same thing everyday. I don't see the point in living if you have to do the exact same thing over and over again for the rest of your life. I mean, I agree with repeating some things, such as eating lunch, showering, sleeping. But you definitely come across new things in life. So yeah, I don't fully agree with the author when he says that.
4More
How Modern Life Is Like a Zombie Onslaught - NYTimes.com - 0 views
-
-
-
I think this is a good metaphor for life; what do you do when your time is almost up, when you're on the run for your life and your days are numbered? Zombie culture gets us thinking about what we'd actually want to do with our last days, and the sacrifices we would or would not make to survive or help other survive.
-
I totally agree with what you said above. I think that one of the reasons why so many people are into zombie culture is because of the adrenaline rush they get when they imagine how it would be like to be the last human survivors of a zombie apocalypse. I mean- if you've lasted that long, you're a badass, survivor, and intelligent all in your own right. It's also psychologically stimulating to challenge yourself and to ask yourself what you would do in such a primitive environment, and also offers you a peek into who you really are as a person.
-
-
-
I don't think it's accurate to say that if you dig zombies you 'dig the entire zombie concept.' This writer seems to lump all forms of zombie culture together on one united platter, but I've read and watched a variety of material that has provoked extremely different reactions and thoughts with me; if anything, it makes me less interested in zombies, and more interested in the human condition and the way our civilizations struggle to stay together during an apocalypse.
-
14More
How Modern Life Is Like a Zombie Onslaught - NYTimes.com - 1 views
-
- ...7 more annotations...
-
Every zombie war is a war of attrition
-
I agree with this paragraph because it is true. There's always just one motive in a zombie movie, and that's to survive and kill the zombies. In real life, once you have a job, your only motive is to survive and earn enough money for yourself. It's just an endless and boring cycle where people start to lose themselves and just go into 'zombie-mode' and just do everything repetitively everyday.
-
-
It’s hard not to think ‘death drive’ every time I go on the Internet,” she writes. “Opening Safari is an actively destructive decision. I am asking that consciousness be taken away from me.
-
Zombie love, however, is always communal. If you dig zombies, you dig the entire zombie concept. It’s never personal.
-
I thought that it was interesting that the author said "The more you fill them with bullets, the more interesting they become. " I agree with this one hundred percent. Nowadays people are not just looking for a good story line in a movie but they are also looking for realistic characters.
-
the author said that "the Walking Dead" on AMC, a stunning 83 percent more than the 2.9 million who watched the Season 4 premiere of "Mad Men." I think that this is true because as i previously said people thrive for things to look real. With our technology that we have today we could make zombies look very real, so thats why I think many people watch movies and t.v shows with zombies.
1More
How Modern Life Is Like a Zombie Onslaught - NYTimes.com - 0 views
-
-
There was actually an interesting proposal on why people enjoy the concept of zombies so much, and the theory stated that it was because of an instinctive and deep-seated hatred of the 'outsider'. In appearance, zombies are similar enough to the living person so as not be hated as something inherently not human, but in behavior, they are always seen as the 'bad guy', because zombies eat living people and that's something that's bad, which is more rare than you'd think in media and in real life. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it shows, as no one does anything just because they want to be evil unless they're some kind of psychopath, while zombies are just bad guys who pose a threat to the living without any rhyme or reason. Because of these reasons, it's easy to enjoy zombie media because shunning the 'outsider' is something that people are pretty much hard-wired to do and would probably do all the time if conscience didn't stop them.
-
Philosophy Now: The Truman Show - 15 views
478More
Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537): Smalcald Theologians - 5 views
-
pernicious
- ...247 more annotations...
-
calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth
-
In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church
-
necessary for salvation
-
prerogative
-
Sacraments
-
-
Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest].
-
Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope
-
Not only alliteration and a play of words, it concisely talks about the whole essence of his stance and the point of the essay. It shows (as we know from context and prior knowledge) that he is judging or perhaps questioning the power and primacy of the pope - disagreeing with how the pope is handling things, treating others and essentially how the pope can manipulate his power for his own benefit.
-
-
vicar
-
-
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church
-
doff h
-
Christ gave to the apostles only spiritual power,
-
In the third place, this must be added: Even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy and superiority by divine right nevertheless obedience would not be due those pontiffs who defend godless services, idolatry, and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel.
-
did not give the power of the sword, or the right to establish, occupy or confer kingdoms of the world [to set up or depose kings]
-
papal laws
-
let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above
-
This will be interesting... I think I can see how that would work - the Gospel does not support some of the things/rules the Church imposed, so it is possible to use the Gospels to prove the Church wrong in some areas.
-
i really liked this part of the passage, b/c it showed someone actually saying that the pope was doing something wrong
-
-
-
pontiffs
-
define
-
Define - key word; in order to argue, you must first open a platform and demonstrate the stance in which both sides are on and also know the definition of the topic, in this case, "divine right" otherwise, there is no purpose in arguing. They would be talking about two different things. This is exactly what he is doing.
-
-
divine right
-
ecumenical
-
-
acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right
-
-
but did Paul receive so much power from the Christ or is he just assuming that he did?
-
I personally think no one is superior by "divine right". Who told the Pope that he was naturally supposed to rule over the Church? It is not even clear whether Christ gave Peter absolute supremacy. Though the Pope may claim that he derives his authority from God, I think it is somewhat unreliable to use God and that small section of the Bible as proof that Popes have absolute power and authority over the Church and people.
-
i don't get why Jesus is saying that some people are superior but others aren't? -_____-
-
Yeah, I agree. It's absolutely ridiculous! but I guess greed is a common trait amongst people and it was no exception for the Pope.
-
-
-
Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers
-
-
What is church in this case? Is it a system or is it a substitute for religion? If it is a system, isn't it also a hierarchy?
-
If you read the next sentence, you'll see that it basically means that because the Church is above the ministers (the whole Church system has more power than individuals in the Church), absolute power cannot go to Peter - he does not have the right to rule over the Church or any of the ministers. This is equality, isn't it?It ensures that all the ministers, not an individual, exhibit equal power.
-
I'm confused. I thought that the ministers represent the church; they are part of the Church structure. Without ministers, there will be no church. Perhaps what he's saying is the sum is greater than the parts.
-
I think it was equality, but there were too many opportunities for corruption. I think it was pretty hard for anybody to be a representative, but act upon equality and freedom. Overtime, the original meaning of a representative must have been manipulated. It may seem inevitable in some ways...
-
I agree with Angela, for the 'system' is above all, but the ministers have an equal amount of power. There is no absolute power to an individual in this case.
-
-
Popes began to seize upon kingdoms
-
what the pope did (fair/unfair) -transferred kindoms -vexed with unjust excommunications (germans) ruducing to subjection the bishops of germany
-
-
Luther wrote earlier that Jesus did not give the power to "establish, occupy or confer kingdoms of the world." What the Pope is doing is completely against Jesus.
-
This was one of the reasons why Luther thought the Pope shouldn't be a leader of the Church. In addition to claiming that he is given the authority to rule by God (which Luther thinks is wrong), the Pope pretends to be a paradigm of deep devotion and piousness when, in actuality, he goes around seizing kingdoms for himself and seeking more power.
-
-
-
let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]
-
Thus comes Martin Luther's main belief: "Scripture alone, faith alone, and grace alone". This quote means that you should base your faith on the scriptures, and not blindly listen to the church
-
Wonderful, he says "let not the authority of any avail more than the Word" exactly as I stated in the paragraph above. Where I said it is upon the Word and not the person that should be the authority.
-
I like that in a religion, there is someone who actually just wants to pay attention to the scriptures and sayings, not what someone who claims to be above everyone else has to say about it
-
-
arrogates
-
necessary to believe all these things in order to be saved
-
there shall not be lordship or superiority among them
-
no supremacy; all apostles should be treated equal = contradicts the Church's teachings
-
-
it shows that the pope having all this authority wasn't something approved by god
-
I don't understand what you mean. How does this contradict the Church's teachings?
-
How does this contradict the Church's teaching? The Church never taught that supremacy is good. It's just that the ministers of the Church, especially the Pope, were corrupt. I don't think their corrupt behavior has anything to do with the teachings of the Church.
-
-
signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty
-
disciples on an equality, without any distinctio
-
From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose
-
bishops should be elected by their own churches
-
there are things i like and dislike about this belief. i like that the churches get to decide who runs them, but i also think that there should be some sort of uniformity in the churches of one religion. i think there should be a sort of standard for the bishops.
-
Why didn't this happen in the first place? The first decision seemed to be all about supremacy.
-
-
synods
-
how can the Pope be over the entire Church by divine right when the Church has the election, and the custom gradually prevailed that bishops of Rome were confirmed by the emperors
-
if popes were to be divine, how come they have to fight for power? why don't they just automatically rise to power? - good point!
-
The popes do not claim that they, themselves, are divine. They are saying that they are supreme by divine right, meaning that they got their authority from God. Of course, like all people in positions of power, popes have to fight for power too.
-
Popes claim to have divine rights to authority - that is not the same as the Popes themselves being divine. In other words, Popes say that God gives them the right to hold absolute power over the Church.
-
If Popes were divine, how come they do not always agree with the Church? "Therefore, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right." - as stated later on in this text
-
-
In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles],
-
states that Peter spoke for all, when did the church start to think that Peter was divine?
-
not really, think that Peter was "head", in authority over the church, however, is most likely a misunderstanding from our interpretation. Perhaps just a spokesperson, but in my opinion, not divine, though he may perform miracles. As the miracles come from God, so therefore he must merely be a vessel or a way for the power to go via him?
-
Martin Luther was trying to explain that Peter was regarded by God as a representative, only. He spoke for all but was not superior to any collective people. Therefore, no such right should be given to the Pope either.
-
Yeah, i agree. Peter is a representative, but not a superior power. But it is understandable that people would have misunderstood. If we weren't understanding this event from Luther, I would most likely to have misunderstood that Peter was greater than everyone else! However, I don't think power goes via him because that would mean he's 'different' than others, thus resulting in his superiority. Then it ruins the purpose of equality, right?
-
-
promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church
-
Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles
-
Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
-
Christ was not sent to bear the sword or possess a worldly kingdom
-
From this persuasion horrible darkness has been brought into the Church, and after that also great commotions have arisen in Europe
-
but has also tyrannically exalted himself above all kings
-
actually at some point, the pope had more power than the king (investiture contest)
-
That is exactly what this sentence is saying - the Pope had more power than the king. It's not really a surprise because people back then actually believed that the Pope was someone whose authority was given by God (since the Pope was at the head of the Church, and he said so, himself). And people thought God was almighty and powerful - so, of course, even a King had to obey the Pope at times.
-
-
the doctrine of the Pope conflicts in many ways with the Gospel, and [thirdly] the Pope assumes to himself divine authority in a threefold manner
-
They have obscured the doctrine concerning sin, and have invented a tradition concerning the enumeration of offenses, producing many errors and despair. They have devised, in addition, satisfactions, whereby they have also obscured the benefit [and merit] of Christ. From these, indulgences have been born, which are pure lies, fabricated for the sake of gain. Then, how many abuses and what horrible idolatry the invocation of saints has produced! What shameful acts have arisen from the tradition concerning celibacy!
-
Lastly, these errors so horrible, and this impiety, he defends with the greatest cruelty, and puts to death those dissenting.
-
First, because he takes to himself the right to change the doctrine of Christ and services instituted by God, and wants his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine; secondly, because he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also the jurisdiction over souls after this life; thirdly, because the Pope does not want to be judged by the Church or by any one, and puts his own authority ahead of the decision of Councils and the entire Church.
-
partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope
-
But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty
-
They nowhere teach that sins are remitted freely for Christ's sake, and that by this faith we obtain remission of sins.
-
Thus they obscure the glory of Christ, and deprive consciences of firm consolation, and abolish true divine services, namely, the exercises of faith struggling with [unbelief and] despair [concerning the promise of the Gospel]
-
he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles,
-
Another example of the orator that no one is superior to any others because the true essence of the authority comes not from the person but the Word of God. Showing that the people should follow the Word and not Peter as it is not that Peter is the Rock in which the foundation should be laid, but the Word that Peter teaches that should be based upon
-
In that time period, I think what should determined superiority was not "divine right", but rather one's competence in preaching. For example, charisma, public speaking skills, social skills, etc.
-
-
For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is scattered throughout the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop [which have ministers ordained neither by the Pope nor his bishops].
-
It is impractical to keep the pope as the sole power house of the church since the church is expanding so rapidly.
-
It may not be a bad idea to keep just one Pope for the time being as well since the more people there are in power, the more chances of disorder in the system. This only applies for Popes that have no chance of corruption.
-
-
Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same dignity and priesthood.
-
universal bishop.
-
Then to these errors two great sins are added
-
he defends his errors by force and by murders, and forbids judicial examination
-
...maybe Luther is exaggerating to prove his point right? These acts seem really harsh for anyone to do
-
But it's true. The Pope did allow the murder of people who speak up against him and unjust trial for those who try to prove him wrong. Martin Luther was excommunicated by the pope and condemned as an outlaw by the emperor. Really proves the lengths in which the Church would go to hide their lies don't you think?
-
-
when for a long time there had been contests concerning the primacy between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople,
-
The hierarchy brings power struggle and can conflicts and eventually corrupts the system or the operation of the church.
-
I think that having a hierarchy is one of the biggest instigators of issues because it creates separation and division among people. It gives the higher a feeling of superiority and disdain towards the lower people.
-
-
-
decisions of Synods are the decisions of the Church, and not of the Popes
-
bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel,
-
God's command that we flee idolatry, godless doctrine, and unjust cruelty
-
From the Church's misbehavior, people start to become distant from the Church
-
I think what this statement really means is that the Pope should not be obeyed, since it is the Christians' duty to follow God's command to "flee idolatry, godless doctrine, and unjust cruelty". The Pope, according to Luther, is cruel, does bad things, like selling indulgences to earn money, and acts like the ruler of the whole Church when he isn't. Thus, the Pope should be disobeyed.
-
-
detract from the glory of Go
-
Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostle
-
Christendom
-
-
decree
-
-
Christians must censure all other errors of the Pope, so they must also rebuke the Pope when he evades and impedes the true investigation and true decision of the Church.
-
But especially the chief members of the Church, kings and princes, ought to guard the interests of the Church, and to see to it that errors be removed and consciences be healed
-
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
-
St. Paul
-
-
Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church
-
neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ.
-
When the empire is vacant, the Pope is the legitimate successor.
-
The Levitical high priest was the chief priest by divine right, and yet godless high priests were not to be obeyed, as Jeremiah and other prophets dissented from the high priests, the apostles dissented from Caiaphas and did not have to obey them.
-
adherents
-
ecclesiastical
-
desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded
-
rdained
-
absent Christ
-
Nobody can replace Christ. He is the only "man" without sin! He taught that not only should there be a head as stated before, that there shouldn't be supremacy of one over another. Otherwise, it would be completely pointless as people would fight for it and lose the real meaning of being a Christian.
-
-
lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.
-
child
-
I don't really understand the true essence of the analogy of using a child. As even children seeks to be wanted and in control of something. Perhaps is just a metaphor? Furthermore, it is hard to be a child "ignorant". Even though ignorant is bliss, we naturally learn as we grow and we can't go back to our childhood innocence. The more we know, the more corrupt perhaps, we become.
-
-
he ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person,
-
Pope is by divine right the ruler of the kingdoms of the world, are [utterly] false and godless
-
individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent
-
When the empire is vacant, the Pope is the legitimate successor.
-
that this dominion belongs to him by divine right
-
The Levitical high priest was the chief priest by divine right, and yet godless high priests were not to be obeyed
-
all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.
-
episcopate
-
superiority is impossible
-
Impossible according to divine law and even the whole world as many of the churches situated in different parts of the world do not seek the "head pope's" advice or ordination. If nobody listens to the "head", there's no head as it's real purpose is gone. Meaning, nobody listens to the pope anyway, so it's impossible for the pope to control people that don't want to be controlled.
-
-
or they teach that sins are remitted because of the worth of our work
-
preside
-
primacy
-
contention
-
hen the true judgment of the Church is removed, godless dogmas and godless services cannot be removed, and for many ages they destroy innumerable souls.
-
Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church
-
Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry
-
He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter
-
manifest reasons for not obeying the Pope
-
ecclesiastical
-
carnal
-
vexed
-
usurped
-
execrable
-
great errors obscure [the doctrine of] faith and [of] the kingdom of Christ
-
Jeremiah
-
pontiffs
-
execrated
-
Neither are these errors to be regarded as light; for they detract from the glory of Christ and bring destruction to souls, neither can they be passed by unnoticed.
-
let the godly consider the great errors of the kingdom of the Pope and his tyranny, and let them ponder, first, that the errors must be rejected and the true doctrine embraced, for the glory of God and to the salvation of souls
-
exhorts
-
incumbent
-
defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes
-
True, is completely stupid. Everyone is affected except the Pope. True men who follow the Word and not the Pope are being caught by the pope and his men as they are against them. People who follow the Pope defile themselves with idolatry and wrong beliefs, and become guilty of slaughtering the godly men and are detracted from the glory of God
-
-
Of the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops.
-
power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops.
-
and placed him in a higher station, whom they called bishop; just as an army would make a commander for itsel
-
Yes. One with authority now, like the commander. Likewise, if commander makes wrong decision, the whole army is screwed. And so if the Pope/bishop makes wrong decision, the whole church is screwed and goes down the wrong road as they have chosen to make one above all. They have submitted themselves to the corrupt control of one human being without true godliness.
-
Not necessarily without godliness to start with. However, as time goes on, people will go on without true godliness.
-
likewise, using the same analogy, when a commander makes a false or wrong decision, the whole army fails and suffers for it. So if a bishop goes corrupt and begins to make wrong decisions, the whole community and church falls apart and suffers in evil.
-
-
teaches that it is by human authority that the grades of bishop and elder or pastor are distinct
-
when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right.
-
this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church,
-
edifying
-
catechumen
-
keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons
-
words pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood
-
godless doctrine and tyranny of the bishops is chargeable with it], because Paul, Gal. 1, 7 f., enjoins that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be regarded as accursed.
-
applied it to the acquisition of gain
-
Very materialistic. All become benefits of themselves and not others or the community anymore. In doing so, not only are they corrupting the system, they are corrupting their own belief system as they should not be materialistic whereas they are doing so now.
-
fallen into human wants and desires to go into gaining material wealth. Quite the contrary to their beliefs as they should first of all, not be corrupt and try to manipulate their power for money, and furthermore, what they spread is that they shouldn't be materialistic. All the goods are in heaven... so they are not doing what they preach.
-
-
avarice
-
wanton
-
all these things shall and must be believed at the peril of forfeiting salvation
-
Roman Pontiff
-
to be considered equal to the divine laws
-
the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel
-
so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other
-
affairs did they abuse this power
-
or lordship above the rest.
-
bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone, and have basely abused it, there is no need, because of this jurisdiction, to obey bishops
-
let them not burden the Church with traditions
-
many unjust laws of the Pope concerning matrimonial subjects on account of which the magistrates ought to establish other courts
-
the bishops, who are devoted to the Pope, defend godless doctrine and godless services, and do not ordain godly teachers, yea, aid the cruelty of the Pope, and, besides, have wrested the jurisdiction from pastors, and exercise it only tyrannically [for their own profit]; and lastly, since in matrimonial cases they observe many unjust laws, there are reasons sufficiently numerous and necessary why the churches should not recognize these as bishops.
-
[that they may serve the Church, and perform their office the more efficiently
-
Peter predicted, 2 Ep. 2, 13, that there would be godless bishops, who would abuse the alms of the Church for luxury and neglect the ministry. Therefore [since the Holy Spirit in that connection utters dire threats] let those who defraud the Church know that they will pay God the penalty for this crime.
-
it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.
-
This, too, testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.
-
Luke 22, 25
-
He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent
-
decree of the emperor
-
Where two or three are gathered together in My name
-
they ought to desert and execrate the Pope
-
schism
-
this power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops
-
the command to excommunicate those whose crimes are known, and again to absolve those who repent.
-
when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right
-
there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel
-
Paul also testifies
-
keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain person
-
r schism
-
It is certain that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors
-
But what tyranny is it for the officials in the states to have arbitrary power to condemn and excommunicate men without due process of law!
-
bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone, and have basely abused it, there is no need, because of this jurisdiction, to obey bishops.
-
bishops have only by human right, and that, not a very old one, as appears from the Codex and Novellae of Justinian that decisions concerning marriage at that time belonged to the magistrates
-
It is sufficient to have recited this, that there are many unjust laws of the Pope concerning matrimonial subjects on account of which the magistrates ought to establish other courts.
-
It is true that what the Roman Catholic Church did was unjust. Yes, it was very manipulative and wrong for the Church to change many aspects of the original Church to support their power. However, I don't believe that it is ethically right for the rebels to respond so aggressively. This would most likely lead to physical violence, which it actually did.
-
-
-
Therefore [since the Holy Spirit in that connection utters dire threats] let those who defraud the Church know that they will pay God the penalty for this crime.
-
-
-
schism
-
For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to the bishops Heracles and Dionysius, the elders always elected one from among themselves, and placed him in a higher station, whom they called bishop; just as an army would make a commander for itself.
-
The deacons, moreover, may elect from among themselves one whom they know to be active, and name him archdeacon. For with the exception of ordination, what does the bishop that the elder does not?
-
so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other
-
Heracles
-
The deacons, moreover, may elect from among themselves one whom they know to be active, and name him archdeacon. For with the exception of ordination, what does the bishop that the elder does not?
-
Therefore, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right. [Because the regular bishops persecute the Gospel and refuse to ordain suitable persons, every church has in this case full authority to ordain its own ministers.]
-
already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria
-
Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the overseer of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most distant lands to seek ordination [for all their ministers] from one.
-
-
episcopates
-
Besides, since this is a most grievous offense, nobody certainly is to be condemned without due process of law.
-
perpetually
-
ecclesiastical
-
execrate
-
idolatry
-
profanation
-
innumerable
-
trifling
-
let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions;