To anybody, society thing must be the substance that if we try to regard it as one complete objective presence, probably anybody must have not well matched reality to the one. In other words, to anybody, society thing is what could help us so effectively when the one has the will to make it commonly shared legacy and our all equivalently have for public in terms of thatany public thing should be done by mutual cooperative action and suggestion.

In other words, society is, fundamentally intrinsically and to anybody as common asset, some flexibly convertible substance at least the form which should be according to the ideally regarded substance.

Though society thing is at least at that given essence must be, to anybody who has a will to join in, what any joining one can take part in making it so conveniently useful for each survival.

And if we apply upper truth so honestly for interpreting our social significance, religious necessity to us could be interpreted as some originally useful tool for each more significant surviving reality's obtaining.

None the less, not so few ones could get own dissatisfied emotion and impression to the society in question, some inconvenient malfunctioning reality must intervene our directly facing reality with some unidentified reason and cause.

That temptive factor to malfunctioning must be derived from some unnecessary socially outputted phenomenal nature or unnecessarily made social reality.

To that reality, religion could never offer us not so perfect advice nor obviously convincing answering to us. But at least to us, in that contradictory situation, only suggestion around dealing with and solving any unnecessarily complicated realities' overshadowing murky darkness at least at minset for recovering our originarily holding mind's vigor and necessary self-confidence for surviving socially any giuen troublesomeness.

Probably either Christianity proposes that hint and minimally credible suggestion and relatively useful advice to us all.

In Medieval climax ages, probably Luther must have had some strongly confidential strongly decisive confidence at enlightening any ordinary believer of Christianity.

And at least to him, superficially socially displaying religiously immanent belief must have been seen so strongly deniable refusing reaction promoting thing. And really at least to him, very many people around him were seen so at falling under that the most avoidable example.

Just of those reasons, he tried to describe like next(subsequent from 24's his words).

"And today, pleading has become absurd karma's displaying. And the priests, monks, bishops who are proud of these unnecessary things rather talk nothing of any matter for belief and churches, rather they all are hypocrites, come under these appearances."

At least as far as concerned with these mentionings by him now for the present, he must be judged that he was emotionally assessable own spiritualist. None the less, he was not only emotional ethicist. 

However, his subsequent next description emphasized more practically reformable suggestive approach as if he was revolutionist. 

The part is subsequent like next.

"To the thing, we should be afraid of. Nevertheless they think that they are churches, conscience, spiritual managers and leaders. However they are never like those. Just they are people of captivity. From them, what baptism abiding ordered supplies are all captured, the left poor ones, married ones in this worldry world are to them so trivial ones."

At leart at these contexts, L uther was seen that he had some steady will to claim that not carnally dutiful socially serving ones are never his criticizing objects, far from it, rather to the ones whom were actually harshly criticized by Catholicism, he obviously gave his encouragement so definitely.

Though, taking account of these serially mentioned contents, his ideas are possibly interpreted like next expedient summary.

LUTHER'S MAINLY EMPHASIZING "CORRECT CHRISTIANS" SHOULD BE LIKE NEXT.

THEY SHOULD NOT DISPLAY EXTERNALLY DISPLAYED FORM NOR SHOULD NOT BE SHOWY POSING METHOD ABIDING BELIEVERS.

Though, necessarily his enlightening christian can be like next.

CHRISTIANS UNIVERSALLY SHOULD(or MURT) BE JUST IMMANENTLY PIOUS TO "GOD", and the manner to prove the belief SHOULD(or MUST) BE 'NOT DEPENDING ON "EXTERNALLY SHOWN SOCIALLY VANITY ABIDING POSE RELIANT MANUFEST" but SUBSTANTIALLY JUST "ONLY IMMANENCE ABIDING STRICT BELIEVABLE MIND'S HOLDING".

By the way, generally, in any society, ordinarily, even in seen honesty recommended society, the ones whose attitude and shown posture are seen pious to dogmatized own belief as generally orthodox regarded.

Nevertheless L uther dared to deny the stance taking ones' manner and stance. And daringly he recommend Christ doing in his lifetime as not flattering nor no pretending to be not dangerous to any worldry commonsense. At these interpreting, his recommending appearance as Christian is daringly "encouraging only socially carnally pretending and flattering acts' decisive negation and overwhelming denial, rejection and declining. 

That tasty his religious stance is (really had been)so not going along necessity evil abiding worldry wisdom nor not applying, in other words, he dares to positive and affirmate only purely religious ideologically purely and only earnestly encouraging only piously doing stance. And in terms of his enlightening stance is never practical, far from it it's rather so extremely radical and decisively fastidious and more to say, rather extremely not carnally snobby nor opportunistic, never yet only genuinely rather positively and affirmatively and radically or actively recommending only "FUNDAMENTALISM".

And at the last, my scheming this essay series' own stance should be addressed to there, Luther's near guard was never be German,  rather just F rench at least at focusing on not practical influencing to people afterward, rather doing on spiritually and mindfully inspired and influenced ones were French ones as in terms of academism circle. At least at only spiritually motivated mind excluding Kant, Hegel, Nitzsche or Hideggar or so, rather French ones with Melreau Ponty, and  Levinus or Michael Henri. 

And this time, I'd like to do here only introducing tiny some suggestion around Michael Henri.

Today, at least at contemporary up to date formal academic circle, Michael H enri is generally regarded as the presence at being thinker, as the one who saw preceding just love in world more than law.

That stance is at least in my viewing eyes so normally appropriate. Because now these days' world situation is obviously seen only legally appropriately seen only procedural dealt global community.

Necessarily either legally appropriate and legitimacy abiding necessarily seen procedure means so much according to only justice abiding idea as ideological view point.

Nevertheless, actually, these days in any site of any country, only legally solvable matters could never be sharable far from it, very unreasonable and exorbitant governmental sovereignty and mutually reciprocal agreeable concession including made light of human lives dealings and solutions.

Though, since next chapter, I' d grapple with the radical stance abiding analysis, continuously with Luther's Religion Reformation in reference and quotation.

（Irregularly continued)

Jan. 2nd.   2023