Martin Luther, the anti-semite.

[heretic888]

I had no idea about Martin Luther being anti-semitic. That's terrible. They didn't include that info in the catechism provided in my Lutheran church.

Gee. Surprise, surprise.

O'course, we shouldn't just be lobbing blame exclusively at the Lutherans/Protestants. Most assuredly, there are a number of historical facts that different religious groups have conveniently "forgotten" about in their teachings --- the Catholics and Muslims providing the most cogent examples.

The point, of course, is not to dwell on, say, Luther's anti-semitism or to actively teach this idiocy to modern-day Lutherans. Rather, the goal should be to become aware of it, realize the dude wasn't perfect, and emphasize why its wrong in the first place.

Laterz.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I had no idea about Martin Luther being anti-semitic. That's terrible. They didn't include that info in the catechism provided in my Lutheran church. Both of my grandparents came from Germany around 1920. TW

Martin Luthers ideas were a lot bigger than he was. his talk of freedom only refered to freedom of the clergy to practice outside the influence of Rome. All the reformation and freedom from slavery were there but unfortunantly just outside the grasp of his brilliant mind.
Sean

 

[heretic888]

Martin Luthers ideas were a lot bigger than he was. his talk of freedom only refered to freedom of the clergy to practice outside the influence of Rome. All the reformation and freedom from slavery were there but unfortunantly just outside the grasp of his brilliant mind.

Perhaps because he inherited a religious system --- and a culture --- that supported xenophobia, mysogyny, and slavery??

And, no, the ideas you are talking about were not "there" with Luther (or Lutheranism). The beginnings of these ideas --- which took root during the Renaissance, and finally emerged in a cogent form during the Enlightenment --- were there. But the ideas in question were historically a later development.

It could also be that Luther himself was little more than a religious fanatic, no matter how "brilliant" he may have been.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Perhaps because he inherited a religious system --- and a culture --- that supported xenophobia, mysogyny, and slavery??

And, no, the ideas you are talking about were not "there" with Luther (or Lutheranism). The beginnings of these ideas --- which took root during the Renaissance, and finally emerged in a cogent form during the Enlightenment --- were there. But the ideas in question were historically a later development.

It could also be that Luther himself was little more than a religious fanatic, no matter how "brilliant" he may have been.

Well, about 100,000 peasants died because they thought he was talking about them but of what consequence were they? At that I beg to differ. People read and interpreted just after he wrote the documents in question, seeds for revolution, and they died for it.
Sean

 

[Tgace]

Perhaps because he inherited a religious system --- and a culture --- that supported xenophobia, mysogyny, and slavery??

Name a nation, culture, religon (heck even person) who dosent fit that...

 

[heretic888]

Well, about 100,000 peasants died because they thought he was talking about them but of what consequence were they? At that I beg to differ. People read and interpreted just after he wrote the documents in question, seeds for revolution, and they died for it.

If I recall correctly, Luther categorically condemned peasant revolt against the land barons.

I think perhaps people are confusing democracy and rational humanism with just plain-ol' religious freedom (of sorts). Luther just wanted the right to practice his religion in the way he wanted. He was, of course, hardly an exemplar of true religious freedom --- the ideals he professed did not extend to non-Christians, and he was admittedly intolerant of other forms of Protestantism that arose shortly after his brand.

The ideals of democracy, true egalitarianism, rational humanism, anti-slavery movements, and so forth saw their genesis during the Renaissance (even with artists like Michelangelo challenging what the Church wanted him to paint), and truly flowered during the secular Age of Reason (also known as the Enlightenment).

In addition, these ideals were found not in traditional religious ideology, but in Unitarianism, Deism, Quakerism, Humanism, Agnosticism, and Atheism.

 

[heretic888]

Name a nation, culture, religon (heck even person) who dosent fit that...

Advaita Vedanta, Unitarian-Universalism, Quakerism, all forms of Buddhism excluding the Pure Land sect in Japan, Sufism, etcetera, etcetera...

 

[Touch Of Death]

If I recall correctly, Luther categorically condemned peasant revolt against the land barons.

Yes it is true he did condem the peasants, after all they were a bunch of lousey peasants, but his writtings spoke to them all the same. The fact that his words were only meant to represent the needs of the german clergy does not cloud the power of his teachings. He published a philosophy that naturaly extends to all people. The fact he did not mean all the people doesn't make him any less responsible for what followed.
Sean

 

[heretic888]

Yes it is true he did condem the peasants, after all they were a bunch of lousey peasants, but his writtings spoke to them all the same. The fact that his words were only meant to represent the needs of the german clergy does not cloud the power of his teachings. He published a philosophy that naturaly extends to all people. The fact he did not mean all the people doesn't make him any less responsible for what followed.

Y'don't suppose it had more to do with the peasants' own desires to read themselves into his writings (not to mention a probably not-too-keen literacy rate) than a philosophy that "spoke to them" or "extends to all people"???

Its hard to say Luther's philosophy was meant to speak to everybody, when he categorically condemns peasants and slaves for being arrogant enough to upset the Divine Order of the time (which is exactly what Luther and others thought the feudalistic fief-system was).

Unless, of course, Luther was really this ultra-compassionate uber-Buddha attuned to the suffering of others --- but was never bright enough to figure it out himself. And, furthermore, it takes commentators living nearly 600 years later to inferentially figure this out for him....

.... personally, I think not. His condmenation of peasant revolt against the fedual order, coupled with his anti-semitic writings, does not lend one to believe he had a philosophy that spoke to "everybody". A humanist he was not.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The fact he did not mean all the people doesn't make him any less responsible for what followed.

That being the subsequent struggles between Protestantism and the Catholic church? "The Thirty Years War?" Calvinist violence against Catholic churches in the Netherlands? The list goes on.

Luther's writings ushered in an age of intellectual growth by crippling the power of the Catholic church and its hold over the parameters of thought...but this came with an enormous cost to Jews, Catholics, and the Protestants themselves.

Regards,


Steve