I did read what you wrote. Now you're going from "they did eventually change the views of the people" to "they had a role in changing people's minds". So, if they only had "a" role, who had the other role(s)?
What matters is that you claimed the reforms came from outside the Church and, as far as I can tell, that is false.
What she means, I think is that the reformers were outside of the Catholic Church yet were themselves still aware of the content of the scriptures. One can be an outsider and still have some scriptural knowledge after all. Witness: Ringo
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
What she means, I think is that the reformers were outside of the Catholic Church yet were themselves still aware of the content of the scriptures.
I named some of the reformers who definitely were INSIDE of the Catholic Church and they definitely DID know the Bible. Luther translated the Bible into German, for fuck's sake. The dissenters that Faith mentioned may or may not have had an effect on the Reformers.
One can be an outsider and still have some scriptural knowledge after all. Witness: Ringo
I'm not an outsider. I'm the one who accepts the message, remember?
What jumps out at me is this phrase: As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted,...
Can anyone shed any light on what that means?
I'm not sure. I'll take a crack at it, though. Feel free to criticize my criticism.
quote:In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Wall of pride #1 -the external one 'as a man' -'dispensation from causality otherwise accepted' = (and this is my guess...) - Basically the same idea as the phrase "you don't believe in all Gods except for one - I just go one further." That is, the "causality" being discussed is the "mundane-ness" or the "reality-based" ideas that lead one to not believe in ghosts or goblins or unicorns. Mr Gutkind accepts this causality to disregard such fanciful notions, but "claims a dispensation" (wants an exception) from this rule-of-causality (believing in things existing in reality based on evidence found in reality) where his God is concerned.
Wall of pride #2 -the internal one 'as a jew' -claiming the privilege of monotheism = "My God exists, obviously. But yours doesn't. Again, obviously." Where the 'obvious' part is, of course, never successfully defended. -"And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization." = "You can say only your religion is the correct one all you'd like. It doesn't stop the other religions existing, or them having just as much "truth value" as yours does. Especially since many of their adherents claim the same thing for their own religion.
And, then in general: "With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception" = "You're only lying to yourself. And, therefore, you're only fooling yourself." "our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary." = "Your religion isn't providing morality, it's hurting the progress of human morality."
...or such is the gist I get when I read it, anyway.