Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
I didn’t say you did. But someone sure got creative one night. LOL.
Have yet to see the film & have limited knowledge of Luther’s personal life - is all of this a complete & utter fabrication?
If folks want to have a back and forth about who committed what atrocities against whom, that’s already been done, over and over. The Anabaptists may want to get involved regarding atrocities committed against them by both Catholics and Lutherans.
You are so right. A central tenet of the Anabaptist faith is forgiveness, which is foundational to Christ’s message so I doubt you will hear from them… “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” is meant to be practiced in daily life not just mumbled in rote.fisherman_carl:
If folks want to have a back and forth about who committed what atrocities against whom, that’s already been done, over and over. The Anabaptists may want to get involved regarding atrocities committed against them by both Catholics and Lutherans.
Frankly, I don’t see either side’s innocence during that time, nor do I see the value in bashing each other about it anymore.
True. Additionally, those aren’t our trespasses. Those are the trespasses of people dead some 450 years ago. Catholics and Lutherans today are not responsible for them, and it is uncharitable to bash each other for them.
Me neither , but it also shouldn’t be the goal of Catholics to misrepresent him. We’ve seen this from the likes of O’Hare, Denifle and others. Catholic theologians have long since outgrown this, even though some apologists haven’t. It goes the other way, too.
Of course. I agree.gracepoole:
Me neither , but it also shouldn’t be the goal of Catholics to misrepresent him.
Are you talking about the pro Luther things that Catholic theologians were saying?
Who, precisely, has asked Catholics to feel indebted to Luther?
I can’t speak to everything in the entire film because I haven’t seen it. However, what has been revealed in this forum (Luther was duelist, a murderer, and a deadbeat dad with children by women other than his wife Katherine) are claims that no reliable historian would ever make.
It was the secular kings who took the property. Protestants would not have had the authority to take the property, it would have had to be given to them by the secular authorities. I’m more familiar with the situation in England. It is true that Henry VIII and Edward VI confiscated massive amounts of church property during the Reformation, but these confiscations were not supported by Protestants. Protestant church leaders wanted the property dedicated to religious causes (such as charitable and educational institutions to replace the monasteries and chantries that had been abolished).
Not by Luther. He was not an iconoclast, and preached that images of saints and crucifixes should be tolerated.
As a protestant I read a biography of Martin Luther and though he was against the destruction of the images of saints and crucifixes, those who followed him or who were influenced by his preaching or what he said, did destroy them.
Never on this issue. You’re probably thinking of Karlstadt. Luther never approved of such actions.ltwin:
As a protestant I read a biography of Martin Luther and though he was against the destruction of the images of saints and crucifixes, those who followed him or who were influenced by his preaching or what he said, did destroy them.
It’s a bizarre claim that I certainly hadn’t heard before. A preliminary search yields this. It appears to be a Lutheran apologetics blog, though the exact page there isn’t very apologetic. It’s actually kind of dry and historical. The writer seems to just dump a bunch of information of what he found in trying to track down this idea that Luther killed a man in a duel and escaped punishment through vows without any editorializing. I too find it weird that the case against him, at least as it’s recounted here, is made up of pretty much exclusively circumstantial evidence… circumstantial evidence that apparently went unnoticed by his Catholic contemporaries fighting tooth and nail to throw pretty much every accusation against the guy. It really does smell of historical revisionism.