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.
I agree that the actions of the Catholic Church forced him to become a radical, in more ways than one. There is however a good argument for the idea he would have become one either way. Luther is one of if not the most famous radical ever to enter the history of Catholicism. During his time as a monk he struggled endlessly with his faith, trying to find a route to salvation and to make himself good enough for God. In ‘Here I Stand’ by Roland Bainton, we see young Luther “was extraordinarily sensitive and subject to recurrent periods of depression.” This is a disposition that seems to have clung to him throughout his entire life.
In England, Charles’s imposition of such means the “placing of altars”, mentioned in Source B, and the prominence of catholics at court also mentioned in B, created underlying discontent. Furthermore, Charles imposition of the beauty of Holiness and the abolishment of the fed fees impropriations in 1633 made puritans extremely fearful of the apparent catholic tendencies of charles. These changes did not create truly vocalised opposition for several years. The case of John Williams and his challenge to the altar policy and the early use of Prynne are evidence, I believe of how vocalised opposition to the religious reforms was of vital importance to the collapse of the Personal rule. The general build in opposition, e.g.
Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion: A Critical Review One of the great myths propagated in popular culture, but refuted by most reputable theologians, historians and scientists, is the alleged ‘conflict’ model of science and religion. As soon as one begins to properly engage with the issues at a scholarly level, the complexities and nuances of the debate are revealed. The misleading representation of the dialogue as a battle between Evolution and Creation is a complete over-simplification which leaves one cold and unsatisfied. In truth, many respected figures from theological and scientific backgrounds are willing to address the ‘conflict’ with sensitivity, intelligence and respect. Unfortunately, as is often the case in all areas of life, it is the loudest and most aggressive voices which seem to make it to the forefront of the expansive discourse.
June 2010 – Section A (Sources included with exam paper) Introduction: On one hand the sources suggest that Jinnah was indeed responsible for the failure of the Cabinet Mission of 1946. He is portrayed as arrogant and quick to call for Direct Action as opposed to constitutional methods. However, the alternative view presented by the sources is that Nehru, INC leader, was equally to blame for arrogance in his attitude towards any future constitutional solution and in some ways provoked the actions of Jinnah. Side A One view presented by the sources is that Jinnah was to blame for the collapse of the Cabinet Mission and that Nehru, leader of the INC, was happy to participate. In source 10, Caroe argues that Jinnah was “very arrogant...and immovable”.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
(Jeffries) In response to all these tangible and emotional losses, criticism to religion and Islam in particular crop up in his writing quite often, including his latest fairy tale novel Luka and the Fire of Life which was written for his adolescent son Milan and as a sequel or companion book to Haroun and the Sea of Stories. Salman Rushdie conveys anti religious sentiments in general and Anti Islamic sentiments in particular in his novel Luka and the Fire of Life through clever use of words and phrases. He decides to call the most notorious villains of his novel the ‘Aalim’, he declares that Gods have no power of their own and are
She argues that the continuation of the received view as being a serious obstacle to the study of music during this period. Throughout her article Brown critiques primary sources such as the works of Niccolao Manucci and others who have painted Aurangzeb as a puritanical Muslim emperor. She also examines the accuracy of the famous incident of the “burial of music” in 1668-9 that is often touted by historians as representing a major event in Aurangzeb’s reign. She concludes her article by exploring some of the political reasons as to why Aurangzeb discontinued Mughal tradition and refrained from outward patronage of the arts. In her examination of primary sources, Brown questions the credibility of Manucci’s account and argues that it’s important to understand the motives behind his writings.
Most famous for his quote, “I think therefore I am”, Descartes was a respected philosopher, mathematician and writer in the 17th century. Descartes was a self-proclaimed devout Catholic, saying that the Meditations, a philosophical written piece of work dealing formally and systematically with the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, written by himself and first published in 1641, were to defend the Christian faith. However this did not stop accusations that Descartes was a harbourer of secret deist or atheist beliefs. A fellow philosopher in the era of Descartes, Blaise Pascal, shared many similarities with Descartes; they both were products of the French renaissance and shares the Christian world view from the Catholic perspective. Pascal said "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God.
Stanley pretended not to know what [John] was talking about. And then he grumbled that The Books of Bokonon were filth. And then he insisted that anyone who read them should die on the hook” (190). Having established that the book is clearly made up of lies the reader has to determine if what is being read is truth or foma. “And then he brought me a copy from Frank’s bedside table” (190).