sighhswolf

Well thanks for your opinion Geo, but you missed entirely the real focas point of the post.
The point was not that discrimination and bigotry are bad therefore Martin Luther was a bad person.
Far from it........and to state the obvious here in a forum filled with people who have studied historical figures and their influence on christianity, may seem to you to be "DUHHHH..."
BUT, the point was that in almost all of the everyday christian protestant denominations there is really very little taught about church history in the so-called sunday schools.
You study the bible, you attempt to ascertain the "plan for salvation" and you are given moral guidance and instructed as to biblical interpretation based on your sects doctrines.

But an indepth look at the historical factors that influenced protestant theism, and the motivations of the people involved is not standard information.
The normal "church on sunday" christians are not as a general rule presented with the motivations of those who are central historical figures
in the growth of protestantism.

In the discussions that take place here in these forums, we sometimes take for granted that everyone knows the obvious, but that is an error.
The average church goer does not get this kind of information from clergy or from religious educational sources.

If you are just a follower, just a sunday christian, the history of the church and the motivations of it's early leadership is something that has very little influence on your personal testimony and for the most part is not perceived to be an important aspect of your religious life.

Now it could very well be that I was an exception
and most sects DO in fact give historical background information on the founders and examine their motivations, and comment on their
methods but I dont really think so.

I see a rather interesting fact here.
The protestant reformers who actually influenced the course of history did in fact harbor an extreme dislike for the Jews.
Yet today that bigoted thinking has almost disappeared.....at least publically.
I would think one reason that the anti-semitism of Luther has not manifest itself in modern christian education is because it has not been deemed important and has been allowed to fade from public conscience.

It would be very interesting to speak with a few sunday christians and get their comments on the
quotes from Luther, as I would be willing to bet that the majority of that class have never read Luther's writings, and know very little about the person, and his personal convictions.

Evidence of that lack of knowledge exists with fundamentalist evangelical christianity in the United States today.
The following news release is to me an example of how doctrine is changed to fit the time period, and that if Luther's out and out hatred of the Jews had been presented to modern day christians
this story would have probably not been written.

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml</a>


An interview with Jerry Falwell will be broadcast on 60 Minutes
Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

“I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough…by both
Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent
man, a man of war,” Falwell tells Simon. “In my opinion…Jesus
set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Mohammed
set an opposite example.”

When President Bush urged Israel to remove its forces from
Palestinian towns earlier this year, Falwell sent him a
personal protest and the White House received 100,000 e-mail
protests from Christians.

Falwell say he believes Bush is well aware of the Christian
constituency. “There are 70 million of us…[and] there’s
nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in
this country down on this government like abandoning or
opposing Israel on a critical matter,” he says.

Falwell and conservative Christians support the Israelis and
condemn their enemies because they believe the triumph of
Israel is God’s will. The Jews’ return to their ancient
homeland – and sole ownership of the territories Arabs and
Israelis both lay claim to - is a precondition for the second
coming of Christ, according to the Fundamentalist Evangelical
Christians’ interpretation of the Bible.

The Biblical scenario is not a savory one for many Jews,
however. “God save us from these people,” says Israeli
political analyst Yossi Alpher. “When you see what these
people are encouraging Israel and the U.S. to do…ignore the
Palestinians, kick them out…they are leading us into a
scenario of out-and-out disaster,” he tells Simon.

But disaster is part of the scenario. Many Fundamentalist
Evangelicals believe there will be catastrophic events on
earth, some occurring already, including the turmoil in the
Middle East, culminating in the Battle of Armageddon in which
Christ will triumph and begin ruling the earth. At this point,
they believe, non-believers will be destroyed, good Christians
saved and any remaining Jews converted to Christianity.

Says Ed McAteer, a founder of the Moral Majority and known as
the godfather of the Christian Right, “I believe that we are
seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and
wonderfully, and, without exaggeration, [it] makes me
breathless.” --

Now if the historical writings of Luther would have been standard presentation by the protestant
faiths, would there be this gathering behind the Jews or would they have even survived as a people into the 21st century?

You take for granted that everyone is aware of the position of Luther regarding the Jews, but that (in my own experience) is an inaccurate view.
If you were to ask the average christian on the street who has promoted anti-semitism in the largest way historically your answer would be Hitler, and I seriously do not think you would find the words of Luther being espoused.

Wolf

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]</p>

agapeo

Change seldom happens over-night. In Luther's case isn't it a fact that he was well indoctrinated with the Roman Catholic "mind-set" and yet started to "see" things that were just plain wrong? Perhaps he hadn't began to look at the antisemitism for what it was. After all he did have his hands full with other issues.
It wouldn't do well to criticize the "Father" of your "sect" now would it? So I wouldn't be too surprised that unfavorable aspects of Luther's thoughts and teachings would be kept hidden in the "closet".
Good question! But isn't it true that the vast majority of Islamic followers disagree with what the terrorists did? Does it follow that all those that are followers of the Protestant denomination are anti-semitic because their founder was?
Is there a place on the Net that you can give a link to these thoughts of Luther? I've never read them myself, but it might be an interesting read.

MortalWombat

The problem with this reasoning is that Luther wrote "The Jews and their Lies" near the end of his life, and actually seemed more sympathetic to them when he was younger.

<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html" target="_blank">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html</a>

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

agapeo

Oh, I didn't know that he was sympathetic towards the Jews earlier in life. That I suppose makes a difference. My comments were based on the assumption that most of his protestation toward the Roman Catholic Church happened later in his life. If he had lived longer perhaps his views toward the Jews would have changed also. But I admit I know very little about the history of Luther and thus my interest in this topic. So thanks for the link. I assume it's about this subject and will now take a look.

GeoTheo

How many people in Luthers time were proponents of Religious freedom? How many people believed in individual rights? If these were concepts developed and poularized later criticism of people before these concepts emerged is unfounded. I think Luther was one of the first people to promote the idea of freedom of concience. I think he was not consistent in it, but it was not fully developed yet. The same way with the founding Fathers who owned slaves. They helped to develop some of the ideas that brought an end to slavery.
So to judge people in the distant past by todays social standards is wrong headed.
Not sure what all the info about Jerry Fallwell and fundamentalism has to do with anything. Only small segments of Lutheranism would be considered fundamentalists, Namely the Missouri Synod. Fallwell and other Fundie talikg heads are Baptists.

sighhswolf

Let me see if I can make it a little clearer to you Geo, the reasoning behind the original post.
Please pay very close attention.
Social standards have nothing what so ever to do with the presentation of truth.
Social standards do not determine the extent of disclosure about the opinions and convictions of a major reformer who is revered by protestants.
It is not wrong headed to question why it is that the thoughts and ideas of an historic figure, one who has been of such a major impact on the entire world, are not taught to members of the protestant faiths in their sunday school classes right along with all the crapola of the holy babble.
And we are certainly NOT discussing social graces or political correctness here, we are discussing an entire way of life and philosophy based on HATE, the hatred of catholics and jews.
And certainly there was little if any religious freedom at the time of the reformation.
But there is a major difference in religious intolerance and just plain out and out hatred, based on ethnicity or doctrines.


Is it a necessity to have an historical background of clergy and reformers in religious circles?
I would say yes if indeed an entire culture and way of life was developed using this persons ideas and concepts as it's basis.

It borders on dishonesty when those ideas are not presented as being part of the reformers ie: Martin Luther's, general theology and philosophy.
Now in reading these remarks from Luther, Even if I were a practicing christian, I would be horrified at the bigotry of this protestant reformer. I would be used to the anti-catholic position, because lets face it for the most part that bigotry still exists today in middle America.
But I would not have expected the anti-semitism of this man to be so flagrant.
So we have a man who is revered as a reformer who hates catholicism and is by his own admission, a Jew hater as well. The focas is the word "HATE".
I would also question why these ideas were not presented to me so that I could have decided for myself the motivation of the man, and wheather I would want to be part of an organization spawned by this person.
And no matter what you think, ideas and concepts of the founders are ALWAYS included in the manifesto and/or doctrine of the orgazination.
Now you say we cant judge historic figures without considering the political and social climate of the time period.
I say thats crap, when it comes to supposedly god loving christians.
Christians are very quick to defend their leadership, they are convinced that they are being lead by pious and godly individuals.
They will also overlook the imperfections of some of the leadership and forgive minor slips in piousness, like sexuality and it's godly flavors.

I think the very nature of fundamentalism and it's growing acceptance in this time period shows
without doubt that old ways and old hatreds never die, and that doctrinally "built in" prejudices
do not go away they just lie under the surface awaiting to be reawakened.

"Intrinsic". a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing &lt;the intrinsic worth of a gem&gt; &lt;the intrinsic brightness of a star&gt;
"Extrinsic" a: applies to what is distinctly outside the thing in question or is not contained in or derived from its essential nature.
The two terms above are used in criminal cases especially against lawyers who have information that should have been presented as evidence but because that information may have been detrimental to their clients case they did not present the evidence.
The lawyer knows he or she should have presented all the evidence for or against the client that is available.
He or she knows something that should have been presented to the public and may have had a direct impact on the case, but to protect their client that information was withheld.

The other term used with these two words is fraud.
Now we have this so-called great protestant reformer who is only briefly touched on in most church educational information and for the most part only the flattering information that is related to the reform movement.

Now to me it just becomes another large religious lie.
If the church had written literature and study guides that painted Martin Luther as a great protestant reformer WHO WAS A RAVING BIGOT.... that I would say is truth, anything short of that is deception by ommission.
It is the same type of omission that follows the life and times of jebus, in that he is revered as
a non-violent passive and tolerant religious teacher, and anyone who actually reads the babble
knows that it was not that way at all.
And the babble itself supports the fact that the
passive nature of the figure is wrong, because it documents a different side of the person in question that christianity overlooks (purposely).
Again and again there is misinformation, deception, and lies by ommission perpetrated by christian leadership, and the followers either dont know or dont care that they have been lied to.
To me it is a serious breech of confidence to omitt any information that is needed to make a determination of the validity and truth of a concept, or the intentions of it's founders.
Is that clear enough for you?
Wolf

sullster

The point has been made here that present day Protestant sects do not mention the horrid anti-semitic writings of Martin Luther and thus are willfully ignoring their founder. I certainly do not desire to defend protestant sects, as I disdain them and their theologies, yet the issue is more complex.

It is an historical fact that Maritn Luther was the one who pushed the hardest for the split with the Roman Church and did indeed set up many of the foundations, but it is also a fact that most Protestant sects, extant today, do not consider themselves to be direct descendants of Luther,(The very big exception is of course the Lutheran Church- duh!)

My point here is an historical one. There were other founders of Protestantism, who broke with Luther in some ways. John Calvin and Zwingli come to mind. You also cannot overlook the Anglican church started by the English king Henry 8. Luther denounced Henry. The Baptists were a sect started in Scotland and were followers of John Calvin, who broke with Luther. The Methodists, Quakers, and others, do not see Luther as their founder. Yeah, Luther was the guy who broke with Catholicism, but all these sects feel they went further.

Was Luther a hater? Yes,indeed. You should read his thoughts about the catholic church. The Pope is the "Whore of Rome". The catholic religion is,"Hell bound idolitry", and the catholic Mass is called a "satanic rite". Nasty guy here.

The fact that no protestant today feels bad about Luther's hate speech is because of the historical complexity of the Reformation. After Luther, many sects evolved and thought of themselves as unique. You just will not be able to pin Luther on any existing Prod sect as to contrition for anti-semitism. It won't happen. IT is unfortunate.

Amos

An argument can be made that he was right about the Pope and about Rome and the Mass and the Jews but that is only possible from where he was.

Remember when Jesus said to Peter "Get thee behind me satan" and if Luther would have done this instead of dwelling on the direction the Church had led him he would have made it. As it stands now he died in hell and that is just the way it is. Do you really think that such anger is the normal aftermath of salvation? . . . which, let's not forget, is what triggered this trouble!

You should also keep in mind that the tension was high during those days because that was the hightpoint of Catholicism with lots of people in both heaven and hell and it was those in hell that were waiting for a "deliverer" who would lead them away from the old religion. The many sects are evidence of this and don't forget Meno Simon who started the Mennonites in Holland. So the Reformation was not so much caused by Luther (as indeed you suggest), but the unrest among those that were in hell with Luther being the long awaited Mephistophelian leader to take command and lead them into the new promised land (where they died nonetheless and so nothing has changed).

It is also true that the Reformation was inevitable because the Church can only push their limits until it comes tumbling down and this is just what happened then. Russia had theirs just 100 years ago and it too killed their high-point.

So Wolf, only a mean bastard could pull that off and then only if he is tormented in the fires of hell by day and by night. Lucky for him that he had lots of company or it would have never worked, and you what? there is 20.000 of them today, each of them with their own ladel and brewpot to stir up a new recipy because where they are it is hot all the time.

Anyway, enjoy these times for these times are good times.

PS Prophecy can only work if the people are mesmerised by the prophet.

DigitalDruid

I remember reading about release of an apology by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest Lutheran group in USA) in recent years for viscious anti-jewish statements of Martin Luther.

That's good.

But perhaps too good. So, as if to compensate, the Missouri Synod, the second largest Lutheran group, recently suspended a high-ranking Lutheran pastor, Rev. David Benke, and ordered him to apologize to all Christians for participating with Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus in a much-televised interfaith prayer service (Prayer for America) in New York's Yankee Stadium after Sept. 11.

I think at present there is a quite intense tussle going on between the 'hawks' and the 'doves' for wresting control in most mainline denominations in USA: Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists as well as Lutherans.

The hawks wrested control of Baptists a few years ago. Now they are on a roll! My Hindu friend was red-faced when the Baptists issued a particularly nasty letter condemning Hindu Goddess Kali as "blood-thirsty" - that too just prior to "Diwali" - the Hindu festival of lights! Similarly there has been outcries from jews when the Baptists commented on them as lost souls and worse.

So I think when the moderates are in control the denominations are more open to looking at history in an objective way. But when the hawks rule the roost - biblical and behavioral "inerrancy" becomes the main concern.

sullster

Digitaldruid, You make a valid point with your terms "hawks" and "doves", and their respective influence on the severity of a sect.

Keeping on topic, we must say that Martin Luther was a soaring "hawk". You can see the antipathy expressed by Amos towards Luther, just imagine the anger of the catholics of the 16th century.

The sad thing about all religion, I feel, is that it is by nature suited to the "hawks". "Doves" always have a hard time because all of christianity is underpined by nasty nihilistic revenge theologies and writings. Behind the smiling mask of love and forgiveness is the true face of sectarian hate and the desire to have its enemies tortured in a hell. The hawks always win out in the end.