Compare and contrast Martin Luther to Galileo: why were they labeled heretics; what outcome did each face? Both Martin Luther and Galileo have gone down in history as great, influential men, whilst at the same time being labeled heretics. Galileo defied the Catholic Church, just like Martin Luther. Heresy by definition is “an accusation usually used to discuss violations of religious or traditional laws or codes, although it is used by some political extremists to refer to their opponents.” In other words, both Galileo and Martin Luther went against the Church, so in that sense they are similar, however their methods in how they opposed the Church are subject to great contrast. However one fact remains, both individuals went against the church by defying both it's legitimacy and power as well as it’s power, but as aforementioned, for very different purposes, but in both cases resulted in earning the title of heretic.
Their effectiveness is due to how the examples display our, America’s, usage of Christian beliefs compared to what the actual beliefs say. His most effective example would have to be when he describes how America breaks one of the Ten Commandments themselves. It is true we are a nation that still permits the death penalty. However, the irony he displays sets it apart from the others because the sixth commandment itself says “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Not only that, his perspective of how we say we are Christian is also good for his argument. One negative aspect to his essay would have to be his bias toward conservatives and the rich.
= using a religious justification for war She was close with the catholic French and nearly married into France = not to do with religion She didn’t defend the Huguenots (protestants) of France, but this maybe partly to do with not having the resources Instead of religion, it could be said that England and France had a common interest against Spain, so joined forced against it Elizabeth seemed to put politics over religion. Phillip was a very pious Catholic, but Elizabeth was quieter about her religious disposition. War may have happened a lot faster if both Elizabeth and Phillip put religion over politics It was more the actions and decisions of Elizabeth, rather than religion that led to foreign conflict, such as refusing to send back booty stolen by English pirates from the Spanish ships. If it as purely religion, war would have taken place long before. Examples of her decisions: Choosing to support Spain’s enemy (the Dutch Rebels) which essentially sets a declaration of war.
The middle policy won lots of support, she said, ‘I will not make a window into men’s souls, there is only one Jesus Christ, and all else is a dispute over trifles.’ This decision was so important to her and England because if she would of chose the wrong choice for example make England Protestant then there would have been a religious war and the Catholics would rebel. Over all I think Elizabeth handled religion the best way she could because she made two
Some may see Hrothgar as a coward; he really cares deeply for the welfare of his people, a quality that is admired by many. Grendel as a character portrays the dark and evil side of human nature and people, something we can all relate to. Grendel causes much death, destruction and grief, with his blood-thirsty rampages on the town of Herot. “So mankind’s enemy continued his crimes, killing as often as he could, coming alone, bloodthirsty and horrible.” It is interesting to note that even though he represented evil the poem says that; “he never dared to touch King Hrothgar’s
Despite Bertrand Russell’s fame and the fact that many handbooks and encyclopedias of philosophy show him as a hero, his claims as an expert in religion should be looked into more than they have been. He was an expert at mathematics, but he was not a serious student of history neither did he really show that he was qualified authority on the Gospel of Christ. As we will see, his analysis of Christianity does not reveal someone seeking to know the truth of the primary sources. Since Russell believed that Christianity, like other religions, is harmful because it is untrue, now we need to find out how Russell made the decision that it is false. But it seems as though Russell feels he can rule that Christianity is not only one of its kind and that it is not true.
This benefited Germany because it was a step towards the unification of Germany, whilst still enabling Bismarck to have the individual power that he wanted. However this didn’t benefit the Liberals at al because Bismarck passed the laws that he wanted, and didn’t view them as allies. One of the main factor’s behind the reason why Bismarck was unsuccessful in my opinion is Kulturkampf (K), which was a divided attack on the Catholic Church due to Bismarck’s belief that the Centre Party represented a threat to the Reich. The campaign deliberately set the Catholics against the Protestants, and alienated them from the Reich. Bismarck’s main reasoning for following Kulturkampf was to keep hold of his influence, which he felt was threatened by the Centre Party, and he felt that K would prevent any uprising.
Other views on how to deal with conflict were in existence, such as pacifism and realism. Pacifism was in direct conflict with the ideas of justified war. Pacifism was the basic philosophy for Christians in early years. This method of dealing with conflict works in some situations and circumstances, but is often times not successful in others. For instance while it did work for Martin Luther King, it would not have worked against Hitler and Nazi Germany during World War II.
One of this war's causes was the nearly tacit public opinion, as well as the Parliament's, that they should support the Protestants due to Elizabeth (James's daughter) and Frederick - both involved in the war. The people and monarchy started to disagree, resulting into a loss of balance in the whole land. Catholics also earned themselves a bad image due to the gunpowder plot, once again creating a scarce relationship between them and the Protestants. However, it's common logic that the situation would be conflictual, as two forms of Christianity were impossible to coexist. As it was nearly impossible for James to neglect the conflicts, he attempted to marry his son Henry to a Spanish princess (dynastic marriage), the scope being to bring Protestants and Catholics at peace.
Words can create a certain connotations in every situation. The word “accuser” means “someone who imputes guilt or blame”, but also in the Old Testament of the Bible the word accuser was another name for Satan, the adversary, and one who opposes (New World Encyclopedia, 2011). Thus being said immediately any word being defined by something evil has a negative connotation, which impacts the people and situation in which the word is used. To call a victim of rape an accuser has major psychological effects on the victim, jurors and judges, the public and potential rapists. Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes, and 60% of rapes are still being unreported (RAINN.org, 2009).