This could get hot and I'm sorry but I never knew this...

[mommaduck]

There is no where close to come on over to. And dh, who just joined the Church, would probably clobber me. And besides, I'd rather kneel than stand. :lol:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[mommaduck]

No way. Not even close. Think about the amount of death and destruction Hitler personally engineered. No one in the history of the world has commanded that much evil.

 

Yes, but there are those that have used Luther's later thinking to promote Hitler's thinking to promote neo-Nazi thinking, etc. I would not blame a Jew for tossing them all in the same bag.

 

Even when I was Reformed, we knew that Luther had "issues" (even as a young man...you had to read him with strong filters)

[8circles]

Again, who is Protestant bashing?

 

LG is asking a question about why aren't Luther's thoughts on the Jews as well known as his thoughts on the Church. That isn't bashing or putting down any Protestant church.

 

She's also asking why any of his other ideas should be given any merit because he also had the anti-semitic ones. The tone of some of the posts is very unpleasant to me, as a Protestant.

 

Thank you Daisy. I really appreciate your clear head & awesome posts.

[....]

aaaaawwwww, but one can't help but wonder what Hitler would have accomplished without Luther's influence. The point is we can't know. nor am I in a position to say with any certainty one way or the other.

 

Hitler's parents were Catholic. I doubt he ever stepped foot in a Lutheran church. Also, Luther's anti-Jewish writings were largely unknown until the 1930s (it talks about that in the Bonhoeffer biography). Europeans had a racial hatred of the Jewish people long before Luther or Hitler. In many places, it was illegal for Jewish families to own property and they actually had to be "invited" to live in a certain area (I think I read this about Poland). The anti-Semitism in Europe was cultural, not religious-based and it stretches back for centuries - it's not a new thing.

[tex-mex]

No way. Not even close. Think about the amount of death and destruction Hitler personally engineered. No one in the history of the world has commanded that much evil.

:confused: Um... not meaning to argue, but for most of history the Jewish people have been persecuted for their faith. Middle ages had its pogroms, blamed the Jews for the Black Death, the Catholic Church killed Jews in the Inquisition if they did not deny their faith, Jews were not citizens and forced to roam around most of Europe in fear of being slaughtered, and if they did get a chance to live peacefully (i.e. Baden-Wuerttenburg in Germany in the 1500s) by some Royal decree -- it was in a ghetto.

 

Your thoughts of modern day genocide from Hitler has a legitimate point. But it did not begin with his regime. It began LONG before Hitler or Luther were in vogue.

 

Read the part on Pogroms against Jews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#Pogroms_against_Jews

 

This is why those who are Jewish say to never forget of history. It can repeat itself. Us humans are not perfect and have lots of imperfection with our beliefs and viewpoints. We are not worthy of God's true divine righteousness.

[....]

She's also asking why any of his other ideas should be given any merit because he also had the anti-semitic ones. The tone of some of the posts is very unpleasant to me, as a Protestant.

 

Thank you Daisy. I really appreciate your clear head & awesome posts.

 

:D Yeah, this is a rough discussion. I'm Lutheran, have a German ethnic background and I've lived/worked in Israel. I probably have a really strange point of view.

[....]

Your thoughts of modern day genocide from Hitler has a legitimate point. But it did not begin with his regime. It began LONG before Hitler or Luther were in vogue.

 

Oh, I know that very well. I objected to the comparison of Luther to Hitler. No way.

[NavyWifeandMommy]

:iagree:

Doesn't it seem that all the great "heroes" all have some sort of terrible flaw? John Knox wasn't all that either if you ask me and I'm partial to Presbyterianism!!

 

I hate finding out abut their flaws after the fact - teach them at the same time - and explain the good that came from their lives despite their failings.

 

There were things I never learned about Lincoln until after I was in college - I felt betrayed!!

 

 

not everyone is perfect. we are reading some Christian Hero books and my children were surprised that they weren't always that great.

[tex-mex]

Oh, I know that very well. I objected to the comparison of Luther to Hitler. No way.

Gotcha.

Saw your other posts. Hubs family is maternally German (he is half German) from the Stuttgart area. We traced his roots back to the 1500s in Musberg and it looks like his people were former Jews who turned to Protestantism to avoid being killed or forcefully moved to Poland. We've been to Israel many times too. I understand. :grouphug:

[unsinkable]

She's also asking why any of his other ideas should be given any merit because he also had the anti-semitic ones. The tone of some of the posts is very unpleasant to me, as a Protestant.

 

Thank you Daisy. I really appreciate your clear head & awesome posts.

 

I just read all of LG's posts again and LG is not being unpleasant at all.

 

She is LEARNING about something that she was unfamiliar with.

 

I think it is unfair to say her tone is unpleasant because the topic might be uncomfortable.

[....]

Gotcha.

Saw your other posts. Hubs family is maternally German (he is half German) from the Stuttgart area. We traced his roots back to the 1500s in Musberg and it looks like his people were former Jews who turned to Protestantism to avoid being killed or forcefully moved to Poland. We've been to Israel many times too. I understand. :grouphug:

 

Ah, I lived in Eilat for a short time. Awesome town. Good aquarium!

[tex-mex]

Ah, I lived in Eilat for a short time. Awesome town. Good aquarium!

One time hubs went on his own to Israel for a few months and lived on $10 a day. LOL He walked everywhere and ate locally. He lived in Jericho with some friends who are missionaries in Israel and minister to Palestinian refugee camps. It was an amazing eye-opening experience for him. Not a tourist trip, for sure!!

Edited February 2, 2011 by tex-mex

[MyFourSons]

I just read all of LG's posts again and LG is not being unpleasant at all.

 

She is LEARNING about something that she was unfamiliar with.

 

I think it is unfair to say her tone is unpleasant because the topic might be uncomfortable.

 

 

I agree. I think this is nothing more than wanting to clarify historical information, which is always a good thing. As a Catholic, I have learned about the good the bad and the ugly, and I don't see discussing the negative aspects of Church history or the flaws of Church leaders as an attack on Christianity. After all, Christianity is bigger than a person.

 

I think it is important to learn about the mistakes of the past and the flaws of it's figures to move forward and avoid repeating them. Historical ignorance can be downright dangerous.

 

It seems that when people see Luther presented in a light that is less than positive, it makes them defend his theology. But we are not necessarily talking about his theology, we are talking about him as a person, and if you read his writings and study his life, you may be inclined to have a less than high opinion of him (I am not a fan, to say the least).

 

But, as a Catholic, this is where I scratch my head at some Lutherans. I don't mean to be rude, all of my in-laws and many of my friends are Lutherans, so I do not hold the problems of Luther against them or the modern Lutheran Church. But wouldn't you want to learn about the man your religion is named after? My husband was confirmed as a lutheran and knew next to nothing about the man before he became Catholic. I know much more about Luther than his parents will ever know, they have no desire to read any of his writing.

 

BTW, Luther was also sexist, and he diminished the role of women in the church even more than it had been by the Catholic Church at that time. I'm not saying this as an insult, just trying to share some information.

[TravelingChris]

Yes, I knew about Luther's anti-semitic views. I also know about a lot of wrong headed views and actions by a lot of people from whom we still think some good has come out of. But I am with Daisy- my views aren't dependent on any one person, they are based on the Bible.

[LG Gone Wild]

My husband was confirmed as a lutheran and knew next to nothing about the man before he became Catholic.

 

 

 

Which points to the ironic part of my discovery. It was a Lutheran woman taking a history class in a non-Catholic university led by a Jewish professor. She was Lutheran back then, she's a Catholic now. She never knew about the book until she took that class.

[8circles]

I just read all of LG's posts again and LG is not being unpleasant at all.

 

She is LEARNING about something that she was unfamiliar with.

 

I think it is unfair to say her tone is unpleasant because the topic might be uncomfortable.

 

I think I'm being clear that this is my feeling from reading the posts. If you think it's not unpleasant then that's your opinion. I think you're reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm not uncomfortable at all with discussing Luther's anti-semitism. LG seems to me to be wanting to use Luther's anti-semitism (which is most-likely as a result of dementia & a product of his environment) to say "aha - Protestantism is clearly wrong". That is unpleasant to me. I think it is unfair to not recognize the tone of some of the posts here which I think are clearly unpleasant & negative towards Protestants.

[Michelle in MO]

aaaaawwwww, but one can't help but wonder what Hitler would have accomplished without Luther's influence. The point is we can't know. nor am I in a position to say with any certainty one way or the other.

 

I would have to agree with starrbuck12 below. Anti-Semitism was deeply ingrained in European culture for centuries, and I'm fairly certain that Hitler would have accomplished his goals without the assistance of any particular church. He stated it all quite clearly in Mein Kampf.

 

Hitler's parents were Catholic. I doubt he ever stepped foot in a Lutheran church. Also, Luther's anti-Jewish writings were largely unknown until the 1930s (it talks about that in the Bonhoeffer biography). Europeans had a racial hatred of the Jewish people long before Luther or Hitler. In many places, it was illegal for Jewish families to own property and they actually had to be "invited" to live in a certain area (I think I read this about Poland). The anti-Semitism in Europe was cultural, not religious-based and it stretches back for centuries - it's not a new thing.

 

:iagree:

 

There's just no way that Luther's flaws--which were numerous--could be compared to the engineered destruction of Hitler.

 

I see him very much as a man of his time. In fact, Luther could be quite crude at times, and some of his polemics against the Catholic Church, and (as has already been mentioned in this thread) against the Jews and Anabaptists are painful to read.

 

I think the biography of Luther by Roland Bainton is very good, because not only is it well-researched, but the author (Lutheran) is unafraid to address some of Luther's more egregious flaws.

 

I can see that a modern Lutheran of today might not be that familiar with his later writings. In fact, I have been a Christian for years now, but still have vast areas of Church history and authors (both ante-Nicene and post-Nicene) which I have not read or studied. I don't believe that is a studied ignorance on the part of some Lutherans today. Like most Christians, I'm certain that many Lutherans are familiar with Luther's main teachings, to which they adhere, and are not fully aware of everything he wrote. He wrote quite a number of tracts--against the Jews, against the Peasant revolt, against the Anabaptists, etc. In the link which I posted earlier, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, for example, has distanced itself from these writings, i.e., his tracts against the Jews and Anabaptists.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Michelle in MO

[unsinkable]

I think I'm being clear that this is my feeling from reading the posts. If you think it's not unpleasant then that's your opinion. I think you're reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm not uncomfortable at all with discussing Luther's anti-semitism. LG seems to me to be wanting to use Luther's anti-semitism (which is most-likely as a result of dementia & a product of his environment) to say "aha - Protestantism is clearly wrong". That is unpleasant to me. I think it is unfair to not recognize the tone of some of the posts here which I think are clearly unpleasant & negative towards Protestants.

 

What am I reading into your post that is not there? :confused:

 

It is kind of ironic that you wrote that b/c I think you are reading MUCH into LG's posts that aren't there.

[LG Gone Wild]

I think I'm being clear that this is my feeling from reading the posts. If you think it's not unpleasant then that's your opinion. I think you're reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm not uncomfortable at all with discussing Luther's anti-semitism. LG seems to me to be wanting to use Luther's anti-semitism (which is most-likely as a result of dementia & a product of his environment) to say "aha - Protestantism is clearly wrong". That is unpleasant to me. I think it is unfair to not recognize the tone of some of the posts here which I think are clearly unpleasant & negative towards Protestants.

 

 

Let me put it this way. I already disagree with Luther and so I don't need an anti-semitic screed to support my position. The accidental discovery of the book had me thinking about it in a totally different way. And that discovery doesn't jive with what I learned about him in school, any school. If dementia and so forth are the cause of his anti-semitism, let that too be in the general record as well.

[Spy Car]

I would have to agree with starrbuck12 below. Anti-Semitism was deeply ingrained in European culture for centuries, and I'm fairly certain that Hitler would have accomplished his goals without the assistance of any particular church. He stated it all quite clearly in Mein Kampf.

 

 

Hitler also clearly stated his admiration for Martin Luther in Mein Kampf.

 

Luther was a seminal influence in German and European anti-Semitism. Claims that his works were "unknown" are tragically wrong.

 

Nor was Luther "simple-minded" when he wrote On Jews and their Lies. The text is available online and people of good-will ought to read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. This is a very lucid but very hateful tract. Its negative impact on the course of history can not be underestimated.

 

Bill

[LG Gone Wild]

Hitler also clearly stated his admiration for Martin Luther in Mein Kampf.

 

Luther was a seminal influence in German and European anti-Semitism. Claims that his works were "unknown" are tragically wrong.

 

Nor was Luther "simple-minded" when he wrote On Jews and their Lies. The text is available online and people of good-will ought to read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. This is a very lucid but very hateful tract. Its negative impact on the course of history can not be underestimated.

 

Bill

 

Well, now that I've opened this can of worms, where is it (in English)? 65,000 words though is a lot to swallow.

[iwka]

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

[Spy Car]

Well, now that I've opened this can of worms, where is it (in English)? 65,000 words though is a lot to swallow.

 

This version is a little easier on the eyes:

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

 

But don't blame me if your hair curls ;) :D

 

Bill

[8circles]

What am I reading into your post that is not there? :confused:

 

It is kind of ironic that you wrote that b/c I think you are reading MUCH into LG's posts that aren't there.

 

You seem to be saying that I'm uncomfortable to discuss Luther & his anti-semitism. I'm not. It is no secret to me or anyone else in my church circle that this is part of the Luther package, nor should it be a secret. LG has basically said that this "revelation" should make all of Luther's work invalid. I don't think I'm reading anything that isn't there, it is there. I need to go out & shovel more of the 4 feet of snow on my drive otherwise I'd spend the time finding her post & quoting her.

 

It is my opinion that Luther's anti-semitism isn't often part of the dialogue because I think most scholars are of the opinion that it doesn't invalidate any of Luther's good.

 

ETA: I'm culturally jewish, btw.

[Michelle in MO]

Hitler also clearly stated his admiration for Martin Luther in Mein Kampf.

Luther was a seminal influence in German and European anti-Semitism. Claims that his works were "unknown" are tragically wrong.

 

Nor was Luther "simple-minded" when he wrote On Jews and their Lies. The text is available online and people of good-will ought to read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. This is a very lucid but very hateful tract. Its negative impact on the course of history can not be underestimated.

 

Bill

 

Yes, Bill, I'm quite aware of that fact. I don't think anyone on this forum has so far denied that Luther's anti-Semitic writings, towards the end of his life, were reprehensible. No one said Luther was "simple-minded," either. Rather, it's fairly well-documented that he suffered from a number of physical ailments, one of which could be dementia. Does that make him any less responsible before God for his latter writings? No, no one is making that claim.

 

What I am stating--and what others have tried to state--is that committed Lutheran Christians of Hitler's day, and still today, were not always aware of all of Luther's writings. That does not make them anti-Semitic or willing to embrace or condone those latter rantings of Luther. In fact, if I may quote from the Bonhoeffer biography by Eric Metaxas:

 

"Years later, Eberhard Bethge (who was Bonhoeffer's best friend and first biographer) said that most people [emphasis mine], including him and Bonhoeffer, were unaware of the anti-Semitic ravings of Luther. It was only when the arch-anti-Semite propagandist Julius Streicher [a Nazi] began to publish and publicize them that they became generally known. It must have been shocking and confusing for devout Lutherans like Bonhoeffer to learn of these writings. But because he was so intimately familiar with all else Luther had written, he most likely dismissed the anti-Semitic writings as the ravings of a madman, unmoored from his own past beliefs." (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, p. 94)

 

I wrote my honors thesis in college on the Kirchenkampf and Jewish and Christian resistance to the Nazi regime. The Lutheran Church in Germany split and was divided into two camps: the nominal Lutherans who allowed themselves to be submitted to the German Lutheran Church (the so-called "Deutsche Christen") and the Confessing Church, also known as the "Bekennende Kirche." In his excellent biography of Bonhoeffer, which I highly recommend that you read to get a clearer picture of this struggle, Eric Metaxas gives a very good history of the Kirchenkampf. Basically, the Confessing Church considered themselves to be the true Christians and made that quite clear in the Barmen Declaration. The Bekennende Kirche stated clearly that it was not separating itself from the Deutsche Christen; rather, the members of the Bekennende Kirche considered the Deutsche Christen to be an apostate church, no longer connected to Christ or His teachings, and that it was the Deutche Christen who had separated themselves from the true Church.

 

Did Luther write Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen? Yes. Did this have an influence on German and European anti-Semitism? Yes. But you are overstating your case, because in fact anti-Semitism was already quite entrenched. The fact that Luther's latter rantings became widely disseminated was largely due to the fact that Hitler and Streicher and other Nazis took these and widely disseminated them. These teachings of Luther's were not condoned by Lutherans of Hitler's time, or today.

 

And, as I quoted in length up above, Eberhard Bethge and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other members of the Confessing Church were not at all influenced by Martin Luther's tract and were largely unaware of them. They focused on what they believed to be true from Luther's teachings.

 

For once, I wish when these discussions came up that the Church as a whole was not always slandered and dragged into the mud.

 

I would also encourage everyone to read the biography of Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Michelle in MO

[simka2]

LG has basically said that this "revelation" should make all of Luther's work invalid. I don't think I'm reading anything that isn't there, it is there. .

 

It's not there.

[8circles]

But should you? Should you trust them just because you like them?

 

You can call into question the soundness of his ideas. You can put the entire man into context and not chop off at the 95 theses. Which is my point.

 

From reading regular school books, I never knew this about him and it is a significant point. I wasn't looking for dirt on Martin Luther. I happen to stumble on this reading about a woman's experience in a history class about anti-semitism.

 

It's not there.

 

I disagree simka2. I do think it's there. My neighbors are currently plowing my out. :)

[simka2]

Yes, Bill, I'm quite aware of that fact. I don't think anyone on this forum has so far denied that Luther's anti-Semitic writings, towards the end of his life, were reprehensible. No one said Luther was "simple-minded," either. Rather, it's fairly well-documented that he suffered from a number of physical ailments, one of which could be dementia. Does that make him any less responsible before God for his latter writings? No, no one is making that claim.

 

What I am stating--and what others have tried to state--is that committed Lutheran Christians of Hitler's day, and still today, were not always aware of all of Luther's writings. That does not make them anti-Semitic or willing to embrace or condone those latter rantings of Luther. In fact, if I may quote from the Bonhoeffer biography by Eric Metaxas:

 

"Years later, Eberhard Bethge (who was Bonhoeffer's best friend and first biographer) said that most people [emphasis mine], including him and Bonhoeffer, were unaware of the anti-Semitic ravings of Luther. It was only when the arch-anti-Semite propagandist Julius Streicher [a Nazi] began to publish and publicize them that they became generally known. It must have been shocking and confusing for devout Lutherans like Bonhoeffer to learn of these writings. But because he was so intimately familiar with all else Luther had written, he most likely dismissed the anti-Semitic writings as the ravings of a madman, unmoored from his own past beliefs." (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, p. 94)

 

I wrote my honors thesis in college on the Kirchenkampf and Jewish and Christian resistance to the Nazi regime. The Lutheran Church in Germany split and was divided into two camps: the nominal Lutherans who allowed themselves to be submitted to the German Lutheran Church (the so-called "Deutsche Christen") and the Confessing Church, also known as the "Bekennende Kirche." In his excellent biography of Bonhoeffer, which I highly recommend that you read to get a clearer picture of this struggle, Eric Metaxas gives a very good history of the Kirchenkampf. Basically, the Confessing Church considered themselves to be the true Christians and made that quite clear in the Barmen Declaration. The Bekennende Kirche stated clearly that it was not separating itself from the Deutsche Christen; rather, the members of the Bekennende Kirche considered the Deutsche Christen to be an apostate church, no longer connected to Christ or His teachings, and that it was the Deutche Christen who had separated themselves from the true Church.

 

Did Luther write Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen? Yes. Did this have an influence on German and European anti-Semitism? Yes. But you are overstating your case, because in fact anti-Semitism was already quite entrenched. The fact that Luther's latter rantings became widely disseminated was largely due to the fact that Hitler and Streicher and other Nazis took these and widely disseminated them. These teachings of Luther's were not condoned by Lutherans of Hitler's time, or today.

 

And, as I quoted in length up above, Eberhard Bethge and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other members of the Confessing Church were not at all influenced by Martin Luther's tract and were largely unaware of them. They focused on what they believed to be true from Luther's teachings.

 

For once, I wish when these discussions came up that the Church as a whole was not always slandered and dragged into the mud.

 

I would also encourage everyone to read the biography of Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas.

 

 

First off, completely agree with your post. I think the OP purpose was more about why this part of his teaching isn't more commonly discussed. It seems unbalanced.

 

I'm not saying (nor is the op) that it should be taught in such a way to bring down Lutheranism, but that the truth about his entire life should be taught....includeing the dementia aspect.

[simka2]

But should you? Should you trust them just because you like them?

 

You can call into question the soundness of his ideas. You can put the entire man into context and not chop off at the 95 theses. Which is my point.

 

From reading regular school books, I never knew this about him and it is a significant point. I wasn't looking for dirt on Martin Luther. I happen to stumble on this reading about a woman's experience in a history class about anti-semitism.

But it should call his anti-semetic ideas into question. Putting ALL of who luther was into the context of understanding him doesn't mean one cannot aknowledge his good contributions along with the bad.

It's getting the WHOLE picture. I think that was the main point...I could be wrong though ;)

[Spy Car]

Yes, Bill, I'm quite aware of that fact. I don't think anyone on this forum has so far denied that Luther's anti-Semitic writings, towards the end of his life, were reprehensible. No one said Luther was "simple-minded," either. Rather, it's fairly well-documented that he suffered from a number of physical ailments, one of which could be dementia. Does that make him any less responsible before God for his latter writings? No, no one is making that claim.

 

You say "towards the end of his life" like Luther was ancient or in his dotage. The man was 60 and at the height of his mental powers. Yes he had some physical ailments, but he was not demented or of diminished mental capacity. "Toward the end of his life" is not an excuse for these sort of writings.

 

Did Luther write Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen? Yes. Did this have an influence on German and European anti-Semitism? Yes. But you are overstating your case, because in fact anti-Semitism was already quite entrenched. The fact that Luther's latter rantings became widely disseminated was largely due to the fact that Hitler and Streicher and other Nazis took these and widely disseminated them.

 

As you say his writings were "widely disseminated" by the Nazis. Anyone in Germany who was paying attention was well aware of how the Nazis used Martin Luther's viscously anti-Semitic writing to their own ends.

 

For once, I wish when these discussions came up that the Church as a whole was not always slandered and dragged into the mud.

 

 

I haven't said one word about anyone but Martin Luther himself. Associating such as statement with me is slanderous, and I deserve an apology for this statement.

 

Bill

[Laurie4b]

I don't think I'm getting what you're saying. It sounds like this:" I didn't know x about Martin Luther. Why didn't I know? Why don't more people teach this? "

:confused:

From my own experience, I don't recall learning anything about Martin Luther in school--other than a sentence or two in a history textbook. I've never been in a church that focused on Martin Luther. (I am a Protestant). I learned more about church history as a homeschooler than I had ever known before. There are tons of things I've learned doing more in-depth studying than I had ever known before. Why is this different? You say that you don't believe his religious writings so that isn't an issue for you, so it's not that you're having your beliefs rattled.

 

Is your point that you wanted to share that with others in case they didn't know?:confused:

[katilac]

Hitler's parents were Catholic. I doubt he ever stepped foot in a Lutheran church. Also, Luther's anti-Jewish writings were largely unknown until the 1930s (it talks about that in the Bonhoeffer biography). Europeans had a racial hatred of the Jewish people long before Luther or Hitler. In many places, it was illegal for Jewish families to own property and they actually had to be "invited" to live in a certain area (I think I read this about Poland). The anti-Semitism in Europe was cultural, not religious-based and it stretches back for centuries - it's not a new thing.

 

I have honestly never heard anyone argue that anti-semitism, in any time or place, was motivated by culture more so than religion. Can you explain and give examples or references? The justification that has been used by Christians of many different churches is that the Jewish people are "Christ killers," which is certainly religious-based. Some Jewish stereotypes are more cultural, such as being cheap, but that hardly seems like the type of thing to inspire such enduring hatred and abuse.

[pqr]

 

For once, I wish when these discussions came up that the Church as a whole was not always slandered and dragged into the mud.

 

 

I haven't said one word about anyone but Martin Luther himself. Associating such as statement with me is slanderous, and I deserve an apology for this statement.

 

Bill

 

hmmm, seems you used scripture to attack the church....

 

So therefore we should just ignore all his other ideas? No matter how much merit they have? Is it possible that a "very bad man" could still come up with a very good idea?

 

Matthew 7:15-18

 

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

 

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

 

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

 

Bill

 

Lutheranism identifies with the theology of Luther. If this man is (as you seem to say) a "false prophet" ( or at least, what did you say? ... Oh yes ...."A Very Bad Man") and corrupt then it seems you argue that his theology is corrupt and, using your logic, the tree of the Lutheran church is....

 

...I see no grounds for her to apologize and there was no slander you did attack the Church.

[LG Gone Wild]

I don't think I'm getting what you're saying. It sounds like this:" I didn't know x about Martin Luther. Why didn't I know? Why don't more people teach this? "

:confused:

From my own experience, I don't recall learning anything about Martin Luther in school--other than a sentence or two in a history textbook. I've never been in a church that focused on Martin Luther. (I am a Protestant). I learned more about church history as a homeschooler than I had ever known before. There are tons of things I've learned doing more in-depth studying than I had ever known before. Why is this different? You say that you don't believe his religious writings so that isn't an issue for you, so it's not that you're having your beliefs rattled.

 

Is your point that you wanted to share that with others in case they didn't know?:confused:

 

To the first bold part, yes. And yes, again, it's true about findings out that weren't taught before. I took 3 different European classes in high school, in three different schools, in three different school systems and it wasn't brought up.

 

Actually, I do think my beliefs have been rattled a little bit by this information. I am sure this may seem peculiar to others who already knew and have thus processed the information to their satisfaction.

[Jenn in Mo]

The man was 60 and at the height of his mental powers. Yes he had some physical ailments, but he was not demented or of diminished mental capacity.

 

Is that what his doctor told you?

 

The man did a complete 180 from his earlier writings about Jews. This writing was from the latter part of his life, however "young" it might have been. The average lifespan was 47 years old. He was not in his chipper youth. He had suffered physically for years and it is very possible (probable) that this affected him emotionally and even mentally. He certainly did change, at any rate, be it because he became ugly at heart or sick in mind. If it was sickness of mind, I doubt his family was advertising it.

 

The argument was that his ending words should not cause us to discount his earlier words.

[Joanne]

I am currently attending a Lutheran church. Not because it is a theological match for me, but because it's a match for my family right now.

 

It could be argued that Luther's book was just the print version of what most everyone of the time thought. When the Church is teaching that the Jews, just by being Jewish, had part in Christ's execution, pretty much everyone is antisemitic.

 

I believe that what was documented in writing by Luther is representative of what can happen when people believe strongly in an exclusive faith model.

 

It's happened in cycles throughout history. It's happening now.

[tex-mex]

Yes, I knew about Luther's anti-semitic views. I also know about a lot of wrong headed views and actions by a lot of people from whom we still think some good has come out of. But I am with Daisy- my views aren't dependent on any one person, they are based on the Bible.

:confused: But if wasn't for God using that flawed "vessel" -- Martin Luther -- you would not have the Wittenberg Bible (the first Bible translated by Luther for the COMMON man ;)), the Tyndale Bible or the King James Bible.

[Michelle in MO]

You say "towards the end of his life" like Luther was ancient or in his dotage. The man was 60 and at the height of his mental powers. Yes he had some physical ailments, but he was not demented or of diminished mental capacity. "Toward the end of his life" is not an excuse for these sort of writings.

 

Again, no one is excusing his latter writings. In fact, I stated quite clearly that Luther is certainly accountable before God for his vituperative writings. Read my previous post.

 

 

I haven't said one word about anyone but Martin Luther himself. Associating such as statement with me is slanderous, and I deserve an apology for this statement.

 

 

The difficulty in these discussions comes when broad generalizations are made which minimize or count to no effect any good which an individual might have written, said, or done. The vast majority of Lutherans believe that Luther made some valid points and follow those teachings. So, when broad generalizations come, such as "Martin Luther was a bad man"--without any distinctions or shades of meaning or deeper understanding into the totality of Luther's writings or his effect on the Protestant Reformation--yes, then I feel that the Church as a whole is attacked. I've read other broad generalizations on these forums before--not necessarily by you, but in general--against the Catholic Church, against the Apostle Paul or other Christian writers and people in history who considered themselves to be Christians. To me, one of the main goals of a classical education is to read different perspectives on history and the individuals who make up history and get a broader and multi-faceted perspective. The more history and biographies which I read, the more convinced I am that many famous people throughout history were deeply flawed individuals as well, but that doesn't negate any and all good things which they said, wrote, or accomplished.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Michelle in MO

[Lovedtodeath]

I am just now reading this thread and saw this quoted by pqr. That scripture seems to have answered the question and I am once again astounded at Bill's scriptural knowledge. I have been trying to avoid it. It is my understanding that one can be a good tree and change into a bad tree, and the other way around. Look at the Apostle Paul. He was surely producing worthless fruit and then changed. Then we have one of the 12 Apostles whom Jesus picked to be his close companions who changed and betrayed him.

Originally Posted by Heather in NC

So therefore we should just ignore all his other ideas? No matter how much merit they have? Is it possible that a "very bad man" could still come up with a very good idea?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spy Car

Matthew 7:15-18

 

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

 

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

 

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

I always thought that the hatred for Jews was cultural rather than religious. :001_huh:

[tex-mex]

 

It's happened in cycles throughout history. It's happening now.

:iagree::iagree:

[Spy Car]

I always thought that the hatred for Jews was cultural rather than religious. :001_huh:

 

I would invite you to read Martin Luther's On Jews and Their Lies and judge for yourself the source of his hatred.

 

Bill

[tex-mex]

I would invite you to read Martin Luther's On Jews and Their Lies and judge for yourself the source of his hatred.

 

Bill

Hubs and I were saying earlier this is why our founding fathers had a separation between church and state to avoid the bloodshed and upheaval. Denominations were killing other denominations, basically. Luther (though very flawed and a product of his environment) changed history with his thesis and writings -- as the Protestant Revolution ushered in an age of wars and church-state power control.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

I personally am enjoying this discussion. Lots to think on.

[SailorMom]

I cannot read all the posts - because I have to work on my graduate classes.... one of which is at the Reformation.

I just, in fact, turned in a paper about the persecution of Jews in Spain, and the Inquisition....

Hatred of Jews was pretty universal - the Catholic Church (the Pope) many times DEFENDED them against violence, but there was only so much that could be done at that level.

What began as a religious hatred turned into an ethnic stereotype around the 14th century - right after the first bad wave of the plague.

Jews were NOT considered heretics as they were not Christians. You have to be a Christian to be a Christian heretic. The Inquisition, in fact, only targeted Jews who had been baptised Christians but continued to practice Judaism (they were refered to as Conversos).

As for Luther, he was absolutely anti-semetic at the point he wrote that. He also helped to incite violence against peasants in the Peasant Riots.

Oddly, his earlier writings were very positive about Jews - he even wrote - in 1523 I think - Jesus Christ was Born a Jew. It makes it all the harder to reconcile his later beliefs. However, he was very angry that the Jews (and the Zwinglians, and the Anabaptists, etc etc) did not covert to Lutheranism. He felt that they had had an excuse with Catholicism....

His daughter also died right before he published the anti-semetic book - and it is speculated that he (along with many Europeans) believed the Jews were somehow at fault for many of the diseases of the time.

[MSNative]

nm

Edited February 3, 2011 by MSNative

[Debbie in OR]

That a person can have correct doctrine in some areas of his/her life and not in others is nothing new. Everything Luther said should be held up against Scripture. Where it strays from Scripture, it should be thrown on the dung heap (i.e. anti-semitism). Where it aligns with Scripture, it should be welcomed.

 

Scripture alone is the arbiter of truth.

 

Anyone who has studied Luther in any real depth realizes the man had some serious character flaws.

 

I agree with this. And where do we draw the line with others' sin and "junk", anyhow? Do we throw out all that King David left us/did because he slept with another man's wife and then had him killed? What about Moses? More current,what about Clinton (although not a fan) and his *ahem* relationship with ole what's her name? Closer to home, what about my own screw-ups (there are many)? Does that invalidate every thing else??? I mean, I thank God for grace and forgiveness.

 

I am very pro-Israel and am sickened by all the evil that has been done to the Jewish nation. I also knew about Luther's legacy, both good and bad, but these things only makes me more grateful that there is mercy and that I don't get to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Debbie in OR

[Kate CA]

I think I know Kate well enough, through her posts and the gentle tone therein, to believe that this statement is not meant as "fightin' words" but as trying not to provoke another debate between Protestants and Catholics.

 

Besides, such a debate would tend to divert from the point of the OP, which was regarding her discovery of Martin Luther's anti-Semitic tract, written towards the latter end of his life.

 

Thank you, Michelle. :001_smile: You are exactly right.

[MyFourSons]

Which points to the ironic part of my discovery. It was a Lutheran woman taking a history class in a non-Catholic university led by a Jewish professor. She was Lutheran back then, she's a Catholic now. She never knew about the book until she took that class.

 

 

Like I said, growing up Catholic we learned about the good, the bad and the ugly. My history courses at Catholic school did not whitewash the crusades, the inquisition, the anti-popes, the abuses leading up to the Reformation, none of it. It did show the Catholic perspective, but not in an overly biased way.

 

I think this is all that should be done with Luther. I think many people are afraid that his later writings will be used as a weapon against Protestantism, or used as a reason to speak against the Reformation, and so they tend to dismiss them as unimportant. But it is important that we look at history in an open and honest way, whether we like what we see or not. And if we do this, the bad shouldn't discount the good.

 

Of course many people will use this type of information as a weapon against the Lutheran church and/or Christianity, just as religious wars and the inquisition, and other historical events and figures are used as a weapon against Catholocism. But these types of attacks are unavoidable, and trying to censor history or "white wash" certain aspects of it to avoid this type of situation simply gives people more ammunition.

 

I guess the point is that the Lutheran church needs to make sure that they appear up front and honest in presenting who Luther really was to it's members, history should be a part of catechism. Not that learning about Luther will change anything about the Church, but having a well informed congregation is always a good thing :). It is also necessary for people to know this type of information so they can defend their faith, something the Lutheran church should help it's members do.

 

BTW, I applaud you LG for questioning these types of things in such a public way, and being open to so many different perspectives. that takes a lot of courage, but I believe that confronting these types of issues head on can lead to a deeper and fuller faith!

Edited February 3, 2011 by MyFourSons

[LG Gone Wild]

I'll end my posting here. Not because I am upset or anything but I keep getting sucked in and I have other stuff to do.