A
amdg77478
Guest
Eden-
I was about to post that same article!!!
AMDG
I was about to post that same article!!!
AMDG
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
I just wanted to comment again on the accusation that Luther’s anti-Semitism was drawn from Catholicism. If that were true, wouldn’t Luther’s years as a Catholic have been at the height of his anti-Semitism? In fact, his written tirades against Jews were from the end of his life. His writings became more and more hateful the further and further away he moved from the Church. If you read the article that I posted above about the Catholic Church and Jews in the Middle Ages, I think you will get a good overview about the official Church position on the Jews. It does not make sense, on a practical level, that he became vitriolic about Jews after he was no longer Catholic.
E
Eden
Guest
I’m too late to edit the post above so I’ll edit it here. The last sentence should read: It does not make sense to blame Catholic anti-Semitism, on a practical level, because he became vitriolic about Jews after he was no longer Catholic.
E
Eden
Guest
Great minds think alike!
E
Eden
Guest
I just want to clarify about “blood libel”. This myth has been around longer than Christianity and has been used against many groups, not just Jews. Some Catholics have perpetuated this myth. However, this was not an official doctrine of the Church nor was it created by the Church.
"Blood libels are allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children. Many different groups have been accused, including Canaanites, Jews, Christians, Cathars, Knights Templar, Witches, Christian heretics, Roman Catholics, Roma, Wiccans, Druids, neopagans, Satanic cultists, and evangelical Protestant missionaries… Variants of this story have been circulating since at least the 1st Century." Source:
encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Blood_libel
Regarding “blood libel” and the Catholic Church: Pope Innocent IV ordered a study in 1247 A.D. The investigators found that it was a myth used to persecute the Jews. At least 4 other popes subsequently vindicated the Jews. However, the accusations, trials and executions continued. In other words,* individuals* were responsible for blood libel, not the Church.
“Blood libel” is a tragic myth and although it was perpetuated by some Catholic representatives, it was not invented by the Catholic Church:
The first recorded instances of blood libel actually occurred in pre-Christian times, still leveled against the Jews, but by the pagan Greeks. In 2nd century A.D. it was leveled against Christians by pagan Romans. It wasn’t until the 12th century that it was level by Christians against Jews; in 1144 in Norwich, England, a Christian boy was murdered just before Easter, and the local Jews were accused (with no evidence) of crucifying him in a mockery of what happened to Jesus. The legend spread from there, and in the 20th century has been picked up by Muslim anti-semites… The blood libel accusation has also been made by some Protestants against Roman Catholics in the 19th century, and against protestant missionaries by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
Source: everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726810
“The first recorded instance was in the writings of blood libel was written by Apion, who claimed that the Jews sacrificed Greek victims in the Temple.”
“During the first and second centuries, some Roman commentators misunderstood the ritual of the Eucharist.
While celebrating the Eucharist, Christians drink red wine in response to the words “This is the blood of Christ”. Propaganda arguing that the Christians literally drank blood was written and used to persecute Christians. Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies and this was suggested as a possible source of the blood.”
Source: absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/bl/blood_libel.htm
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Good points here!
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
One has to stop and ask, “Why do Catholics always resort to bringing up Luther’s later attitudes toward the Jews?” The answer: it’s important for them to deflect the guilt of their church’s abuses and doctrinal confusion that Luther rightly fought against. Rather than deal with the blatant abuses, need for reform, and the muddled exposition of the Bible(by the 16th Century Catholic Church) the tactic is to discredit Luther by attacking him personally.
Simply because Luther was wrong on his attitude toward the Jews does not necessarily mean he was wrong on the need for church reform, the proclamation of the gospel of justification by faith alone, or sola scriptura. No Protestant argues that Luther was an infallible interpreter, divine authority, or immaculately conceived. We realize Luther was a man of many faults. Yet when he proclaims the gospel, he is absolutely correct because the Bible clearly teaches it. When he speaks out against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church he is right because history shows this was the case. When he makes terrible statements about the Jews, he’s not right (or wrong) because he was somehow a Protestant pope or the originator of Protestantism, he’s wrong because a clear exposition of the Scriptures do not support such terrible statements.
There is no getting around it: Luther said some awful things about the Jewish people. Where Luther was gravely mistaken, Protestants must admit his faults.
I do not condone Luther’s anti-Jewish writings. He was deeply wrong. I have sadness and anger towards Luther’s later anti-Jewish writings and his generation’s treatment of the Jews. Similar to Luther, one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians of his day, his nemesis John Eck, also wrote some virulent anti-Jewish tracts. Here we find two leading theologians of the Protestant Church and the Roman Catholic Church both engaging in clearly anti-Christian attitudes. How could two of the best minds of the sixteenth century be so wrong and not realize it? Had it just been Luther, perhaps a critic could say: “See the basis of Protestantism is flawed and leads to anti-Semitism.” However, John Eck was considered a Roman Catholic theologian of great brilliance. He was respected and revered by the Papacy (and utilized by the Papacy!), and yet he also attacked the Jews unjustly.
I would not go so far as to malign the entire career of Luther based on his negative comments concerning the Jews. Simply because Luther was wrong about the Jews, doesn’t mean he was wrong on everything.
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Lol. Actually, as much as as I disapprove of the blatant bias in Grisar’s work, Grisar does provide a lot of “factoids” which can be useful for a researcher.Hello amdg77478!
He was a jesuit named Hartmann Grisar and you have just opened yourself up to the wrath of our resident Martin Luther expert TertiumQuid. TQ has an article dedicated to the marginalization of Grisar’s research. In fact, be very cautious. TertiumQuid will give you lengthy refutations any time you mention or quote an author or researcher that has presented Martin Luther in a negative light. So brace yourself!
Regards,
James Swan
S
Shibboleth
Guest
As awful as the writings by Luther on the Jews it should be noted that Luther was not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is the disliking or thinking someone is inferior simply because they have linage to a small area in southwestern Asia. This is why when people call Palestinians anti-Semites it is silly because Palestinians are Semites.
Luther was anti-Judaism. If someone stopped teaching Judaism then he was not only acceptable of them but he did have some Jewish converts as friends.
My point on showing the relationship between a Catholic and Luther comment was not actually to say that this is where he got his philosophy on the Jews. It was to show that people on both sides of the fence have issues in this area. The fact that Luther was outside of the Church when it happened is just silly logic.
For one thing we have another Catholic Monk before Luther’s time that is written about in The Encyclical A Quo Primum by Pope Benedict XIV.
Lutheranism does not teach the killing of Jews any more that Catholicism teaches the killing of Jews. During the Second World War the Lutheran Churches existed as one of the largest underground escape routs and respites for the Jews.
It is true that Luther wrote most of his exceptionally vitriolic literature in the later years of his life. Luther was showing signs of dementia in his later years. This was either due to some organic brain disorder or Alzheimer’s. Anyways, vitriolic behavior is a commonality with individuals with these disorders. By this time most of the Formulas, Catechisms, and Apologies were already written. Luther was still traveling and teaching but the Church was being run by others at this time. The Princes had gotten their use out of Luther and could now enjoy the control over the Churches in their area without him as they had always desired.
Luther was anti-Judaism. If someone stopped teaching Judaism then he was not only acceptable of them but he did have some Jewish converts as friends.
My point on showing the relationship between a Catholic and Luther comment was not actually to say that this is where he got his philosophy on the Jews. It was to show that people on both sides of the fence have issues in this area. The fact that Luther was outside of the Church when it happened is just silly logic.
For one thing we have another Catholic Monk before Luther’s time that is written about in The Encyclical A Quo Primum by Pope Benedict XIV.
So just because Radulph was under the Papal yoke at this time he was taught his behavior from Catholicism - of course not, I am just pointing out the logical weirdness of this.
Lutheranism does not teach the killing of Jews any more that Catholicism teaches the killing of Jews. During the Second World War the Lutheran Churches existed as one of the largest underground escape routs and respites for the Jews.
It is true that Luther wrote most of his exceptionally vitriolic literature in the later years of his life. Luther was showing signs of dementia in his later years. This was either due to some organic brain disorder or Alzheimer’s. Anyways, vitriolic behavior is a commonality with individuals with these disorders. By this time most of the Formulas, Catechisms, and Apologies were already written. Luther was still traveling and teaching but the Church was being run by others at this time. The Princes had gotten their use out of Luther and could now enjoy the control over the Churches in their area without him as they had always desired.
M
Mickey
Guest
Lol. What do you really think James? Blatant bias? “Factoids”?
“It amazes me how frequently contemporary Catholics (both laymen and apologists) refer to Grisar’s work on Luther. I have a strong suspicion that those who utilize him are unaware of the shortcomings of his work… Why adherents to Catholicism think they should be taken seriously about Luther by quoting Grisar simply shows they have never thought critically about Grisar”. (James Swan)
You crack me up! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_205.gif
S
Shibboleth
Guest
I don’t know why.
There are many writings that are biased or not completely factual in which we find useful information. All that one must be aware of when using such sources is that an extra dose of skepticism should be applied. Citing individuals that have a tendency to be biased in their work is also problematic because most do not have time to research those statements which are credible and those that contain skewed information.
One example that I can think of are those works that the Catholic Church considers to be apocryphal. There is a ton of useful information to be gained from these works but a person needs to be exceptionally careful when using them. Also it wouldn’t be good form to come on a thread and go, “Well according to the Gospel of Thomas.”
So in the end although something might be biased or have false information it still may contain useful factoids. It is just a matter of finding diamonds in the dust.
A
amdg77478
Guest
My problem with Luther goes FAR beyond his anti-Judaism. He also encouraged and condoned the slaughter of over 100,000 peasants and BRAGGED about it afterwards. He was the epitome of the political philosophy that might makes right. He ardently defended despotism. He was contemptuous of the basic rights of the people that he had supposedly helped “liberate” from the Church. He congratulated men who had raped nuns and pillaged monastaries. He disparaged the institution of marriage. He proclaimed that it didn’t matter how many times a day you committed serious crimes (e.g. rape, murder, theft), but as long as you had faith in Jesus, you were alright with God.
Luther stated that he was the “prophet of the German people”, the greatest prophet for 1,000 years. Luther basically created a German, nationalistic religion. He justified his removing certain books from the Bible and adding the word “alone” next to the word “faith” in the Bible (regarding justification) on the grounds of his own authority, i.e. “because Doctor Martin Luther said so.” He gave himself far more authority than any pope - and stated that if you didn’t agree with HIM, that you were wrong (and probably going to hell), because HE was God’s instrument. There is no shortage of absolutely outrageous things that Luther said.
The Nazis put many of his evil words into practice. Luther had prepared the German people well for the reception of Hitler’s message. Ask yourself - why was the Holocaust brought about in Germany - why not France, or Italy, or England? Why was Germany different? After all, anti-Semitism existed in every country in Europe. What about Germany was so different that made the institution of the Holocaust possible? That would be Martin Luther. I see no other reasonable explanation.
Luther was certainly a brilliant man, but also a very, very, very sick man.
My problem with Luther is - How could a man so vile, so full of pride and hate be inspired by God? How could this man be a man of God?
AMDG
Luther stated that he was the “prophet of the German people”, the greatest prophet for 1,000 years. Luther basically created a German, nationalistic religion. He justified his removing certain books from the Bible and adding the word “alone” next to the word “faith” in the Bible (regarding justification) on the grounds of his own authority, i.e. “because Doctor Martin Luther said so.” He gave himself far more authority than any pope - and stated that if you didn’t agree with HIM, that you were wrong (and probably going to hell), because HE was God’s instrument. There is no shortage of absolutely outrageous things that Luther said.
The Nazis put many of his evil words into practice. Luther had prepared the German people well for the reception of Hitler’s message. Ask yourself - why was the Holocaust brought about in Germany - why not France, or Italy, or England? Why was Germany different? After all, anti-Semitism existed in every country in Europe. What about Germany was so different that made the institution of the Holocaust possible? That would be Martin Luther. I see no other reasonable explanation.
Luther was certainly a brilliant man, but also a very, very, very sick man.
My problem with Luther is - How could a man so vile, so full of pride and hate be inspired by God? How could this man be a man of God?
AMDG
M
Mickey
Guest
For hundreds of years, there have been researchers who have concluded that Luther was evil, mentally ill, etc. He is portrayed in the worst possible light. For hundreds of years there have been others who have declared him to be a brilliant genius who saved the world from the evils of Catholicism. Obviously neither is correct. But tell me–how does one maintain complete objectivity. No one really knows what was inside Luther’s mind. His own writings can be interpreted differently by each person who reads them. (sort of like sola scriptura).
One must look at the result. Luther was instrumental in the beginnings of massive division. And yet his vision was very close to Catholicism. He did not want thousands of different denominations–he wanted a reformed Catholic Church. But where are we today? The Catholic Church did reform–and protestantism continues to divide. I am not going to judge Luther the man–I can only observe the results. Any and all researchers who attempt to decipher his life and his mind, are going to be subjective. It depends on what colored glasses you are wearing. It doesn’t matter what you read, who you talk to, or even what Martin himself said. It doesn’t matter how intelligently structured the author’s research may be. Luther did what he did–and results were disastrous–because division was not the plan.Bless you,
Mickey
E
Eden
Guest
If the definition of biased is “influenced in an unfair way”, referring to the Catholic position (and by extension, Catholic writers) on Luther as “biased” reeks of secularism. Within our Church there is a spectrum of perception ranging from “He was misguided and flawed but not an entirely bad person” to “He was evil”. However, whether one is more charitable or more direct, the Catholic position remains firm: “Luther was wrong”. Is the Catholic position “biased” when we say that abortion is murder? Are we “biased” when we declare to non-Christians that Jesus was the Son of God? No. It is inaccurate to refer to our position on Luther as “biased”. Let’s be aware of the relativism that can seep into religious dialogue. To be Catholic, one must believe that Martin Luther was misguided. We are talking about a serious error here- the deception of souls. There is no in between. Religion is guided on truths not biases.
E
Eden
Guest
E
Eden
Guest
As awful as the writings by Luther on the Jews it should be noted that Luther was not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is the disliking or thinking someone is inferior simply because they have linage to a small area in southwestern Asia. This is why when people call Palestinians anti-Semites it is silly because Palestinians are Semites. Luther was anti-Judaism. If someone stopped teaching Judaism then he was not only acceptable of them but he did have some Jewish converts as friends. - We are all aware of the literal meaning of “anti-Semitism”. However, “anti-Semite” has been used to refer exclusively to anti-Judaism for some time. Remember, in Europe the only “Semites” for centuries were the Jewish people. Does that make sense or is it “logical weirdness”?
If you would like a more credible source than I: encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Anti-Semitism
“The term has always referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to other people who speak semitic languages (e.g., Arabs) and this has been the only use of this word for more than a century. In recent decades some people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language. However, this usage has not been widely adopted. In that there are few instances of prejudice against both Arabs and Jews to the exclusion of other races or nationalities, and in fact many more instances of antagonism between Jews and Arabs than of a specific bias against both groups together, there would seem to be little need for a word to describe such a prejudice, and to redefine ‘antisemitism’ would result in robbing the word of any usefulness.”
My point on showing the relationship between a Catholic and Luther comment was not actually to say that this is where he got his philosophy on the Jews. It was to show that people on both sides of the fence have issues in this area. The fact that Luther was outside of the Church when it happened is just silly logic. -
Thank you for clarifying that Luther’s anti-Semitism was his own. That was my point too.
It is true that Luther wrote most of his exceptionally vitriolic literature in the later years of his life. Luther was showing signs of dementia in his later years. This was either due to some organic brain disorder or Alzheimer’s. Anyways, vitriolic behavior is a commonality with individuals with these disorders. - **Luther wrote “Letters to Spalatin”. These letters are interesting in showing Luther’s atitude towards Rome and towards theology. They also reveal that Luther’s hatred of Jews, best seen in his 1543 letter, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on. **
The Princes had gotten their use out of Luther and could now enjoy the control over the Churches in their area without him as they had always desired. - What?
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Amen to thatFor hundreds of years, there have been researchers who have concluded that Luther was evil, mentally ill, etc. He is portrayed in the worst possible light. For hundreds of years there have been others who have declared him to be a brilliant genius who saved the world from the evils of Catholicism. Obviously neither is correct. But tell me–how does one maintain complete objectivity. No one really knows what was inside Luther’s mind. His own writings can be interpreted differently by each person who reads them. (sort of like sola scriptura).
Bless you,
Mickey
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Well there are certainly a ton on things here to address that one does not have time to do, I will speek on some at a later time. I think though that Luther’s comments should be put to the side for a moment because I think perhaps there is a more real life person to look at…
It is commendable that one should understand those that have done terrible things in the name of God or what not but I don’t think that it is spiritually healthy to become emotionally involved in this issue to the level that I believe some have become - especially in regards to negative emotions. For instance I believe that Mohammed did terrible things and it would be good for me to understand them buy it is not healthy for me to obsess about the issue and look into what he did wrong to the point that it hinders my own spiritual growth. This can get exceedingly bad if we start manifesting wrathful emotions.
It is commendable that one should understand those that have done terrible things in the name of God or what not but I don’t think that it is spiritually healthy to become emotionally involved in this issue to the level that I believe some have become - especially in regards to negative emotions. For instance I believe that Mohammed did terrible things and it would be good for me to understand them buy it is not healthy for me to obsess about the issue and look into what he did wrong to the point that it hinders my own spiritual growth. This can get exceedingly bad if we start manifesting wrathful emotions.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Well because Hitler was from Germany to make a long story short. Why Hitler came to power was that Germany was in a bad way… the people wanted reform and they wanted change. They had no idea what came with Hitler. Hitler actually made Time Magazines man of the year. No one knew what he was capable of…
That being said the Germans have a word called ‘Zeitgeist’ which literally translated means ‘time ghost’. The situation worldly was ripe in time for despots to take power. Stalin actually had more blood on his hands than Hitler.
Anyways, the Holocaust was more a situation of human social learning and behavior. There is a very famous experiment called “White Lab coat Experiment” or it is often called “Milgram’s Experiment” after the person who first conducted it… Milgram wanted to find out if the ability to do what the Germans did to the Jews was unique the psyche of the German people of the day. What he discovered was that it was most definitely not. He was able to have individuals give a person a leathal dose of electric shock simply because he wore a white labcoat and carried a clipboard. These people were Americans by the way…
What we commonly see in ethnic cleansing situations is that individuals do not agree with what is occuring but because someone with authority is directing it they comply. This is done because of diffusion of responsablitiy and the thought the those with authority know best.
This has been proven several times over in History.
So to conclude if Hitler would have been a French individual and the environment would have been right for his election then the Holocuast would have started in France.
My education is in Psychology by the way…
M
Mickey
Guest
…AND AMEN TO THAT.
- Status