Thursday, October 3, 2013
Pico vs. Luther
Pico says that man is able to be whatever they want, he says that man can be an angel, or they could be animals, and it is each mans decision to choose which he wants to be more like, Martin Luther on the other hand, believes that man does not have the freedom of Choice, god decision who to give faith to. he has pre-planed mans life, and you can not go against his plan. Which do you believe based of of the texted you have read?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Luther because if you look at Pico's document all he really says is that god created us and he interpreted the bible as saying that we were great. Luther on the other hand has a pretty solid argument and I feel that the two are very similar because Luther isn't saying that all man is bad, he's just saying that a man with faith trumps and man without faith which is what I think Pico is trying to say, just not as clear as Luther does.
ReplyDeleteI believe in what Luther says about having the freedom of choice. Luther's argument is clear and has support from the Scriptures/Bible. He says that God has already planned your life, and you cannot do anything to go against this plan. This is a much more solid argument then Pico's, where he says that humans have free will and free choice, and are able to be what they choose to be.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own opinion and personal beliefs I believe Pico more so then Luther. Pico makes interesting incites about humans that I like to believe. That being that humans are almost like a seed that can grow into either a plant or animal. Meaning that a plant is vegetative and that a animal is sensitive. When we grow "we can become whatever we choose to become" says Pico. Also that the ambition in our soul makes us who we are.
ReplyDeleteI think that I agree with Luther. I believe that all people have the power to become who and what he or she chooses to be. If Luther was right, In that we are all simply controlled by God, then how would there be sin? This is on Erasmus's points. It makes no sense that if God had absolute power over the actions of men, he would cause men to sin. We, without a doubt live in a world full of sin, and I do not believe that God wants it to be this way.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Pico's more humanistic views are correct. If god had predetermined everything that was to happen to humans, he would not of needed to write the commandments or have rewards and punishments (heaven and Hell) because he controls what we do and humans would not have the chance to follow the rules or not follow them
ReplyDeleteI really agree with Mohn's comment about humans wanting to believe that they have free will, and I also find Pico's argument more persuasive. Although Luther's argument does have some rather strong moments overall I agree with Pico. From the Bible Catholics learn that God loves all of his children. If this is true then why would God let some of them fall into sin if he controlled their lives. This point supports Pico's idea of free will because if free will exists then no matter what God does people can still fall into sin because they have the power to make their own decisions. On the other hand if Luther's argument were true then I would think that God hates a lot of people because he would make them fall into sin and he only gives faith to so few people. This is the main point that leads me to side with Pico since it is an inconsistency that even though God loves all creatures he makes some of them live miserable lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points made by Maddie Mohn and Paidin. I personally believe more of what Pico is saying, and I think that his humanistic ideas tend to be more appealing to the modern reader. I don't think that people today want to believe that they are eternally sinful. Pico tends to have a more optimistic outlook on the potential of mankind, saying that they can "choose...the limits and bounds of [their] nature". Also, the question that Erika is asking reminds me of our discussion of fate in Romeo and Juliet.
ReplyDelete