In your opinion. And Hitler’s ideology would have taken root just as easily, had the Reformation never happened? Is that what you are suggesting?
Maybe. Maybe not. So out there somewhere is a tract identical to the one Luther wrote against the Jews? And that tract was written not by Martin Luther but by Norman Luther and Hitler celebrated Norman Luther’s birthday by burning the synagogues. Right?
Occam’s Razor, my friend. And a big red herring. You are attempting to detour attention from the fact that Luther wrote that nasty little tract against the Jews by unilaterally ‘assigning’ me a rabbit chase on the entire background of attitudes to the Jews.
Red herring. Nice try though. I had only to go as far as Luther and his friends.
Red herring. Please, Mr Contarini, can you refrain from this flagrant condescension for a bit? Can you not give it a rest? There are very educated folks on this forum, Sir. Not everyone is lacking in the literary graces.
Are you suggesting that Luther used ‘literary allusions’ in publishing his pamphlets? If so, then that strikes me as somewhat overly ‘imaginative.’ In any case, as I have said before, there is no need for me to go on a rabbit chase. There is no need to go any further than what Luther himself published.
This is excessive. It is another rabbit chase. I have provided ample links to credible sources. I suggest you start with those. And frankly, Mr Contarini, I am bowled over that you who rarely substantiate your claims and rarely post links are coming down on me who is – if anything – a frequent linker.
The links are there. Please be kind enough to read them. The rest is a rabbit chase and has little to do with the points I wished to make. Thank you.
My claims were quoted directly from reputable sources. I have made the case I wanted to make. I have provided links. If you want a further case to be made, then you are free to do so.
There is no need to. He either did what he did. Or he did not. No historical context will change what he did.
Empty rhetoric, Mr Contarini?
Saying so, does not make it so. What you are suggesting is that because I have not made your points for you that I have engaged in empty rhetoric. This, of course, is illogical and extreme, as far as rhetoric goes. If you have a point you wish to make, you are free to do so without unilaterally attempting to engage me to do the legwork for you.
) end of post
So we all have motives. My point was that it is not for another poster to attribute motive to me. It is for God. No other.
How many poor folks could spare the time from making a living to learn how to read? It wasn’t simply a question of learning how to read either. It was a question of having a general education in order to read with understanding. Who could afford the time off work to acquire a general education? The folks in question did not live in 21stC Western countries.
Because for centuries Bibles were handcopied. It took a lifetime to copy a Bible. Bibles, therefore, were more precious than gold. They were chained to the pulpits by both Catholics and Reformers in order to prevent folks from stealing them.
The question was:
Please answer the question rather than using the question as an assumption to go off on your own tangent. If you want to go off on your own tangent, then there is no need to quote my material. OK? Thank you.
Understood. I will not refute this at this time because to do so would be to detour this thread off topic. But thank you for the short answer. If you wish to discuss it further, then please find a thread on this subject or start a new thread on this subject. Thank you.
Confused? Confused about what?
Red herring. And how do you know all this? Please answer the question rather than using the question as an opportunity to go off on a tangent. OK? Thank you. Also, do you not think it to be somewhat disrespectful to assume that we folks at CAF have not read our Bible?
God’s Word is the Logos which is the Second Person of the Bible as per my signature.
Why?
This is not a reason for leaving Hitler out of it. Hitler was part of the line of reasoning** I** was making. I am amused that some folks have been so impressed by the material which I posted to make my point that they now wish me to write posts making their points for them.…too many people have died in the world for religious beliefs. My ancestors were Jews and they were just as wrong as those who have not obeyed God’s Word. Mark 16:15-16.
Do you have answers to any of the questions which I have asked?
I think it is ironic that you try to distract from the provocative nature of some of your responses to folks in this thread by characterizing my posts as ‘throwing around allegations’ rather than successfully refuting my posts.
This is a very good plan, Mr Contarini.
And who knows? They may not seem extraordinary to us either should you see fit to substantiate them. But that so far is in the realm of the hypothetical.
Then, Sir, you know better than to expect us to accept your opinions merely on the basis of your having articulated them and not on the basis of any line of reasoning or linked references offered on your part.
Let me see if I understand you, Mr Contarini: You want us to accept that you are one of a group of authoritative sources on what is extraordinariness during the Reformation and that you want us to accept your unsubstantiated claims only on the basis of your membership in that group of authoritative sources? I don’t think I can do that.
Your questions, Sir, are red herrings so I do not feel logically obliged to answer them at this time on this thread on this topic.
Red herring. We are talking about accuracy. Are you refuting the accuracy of what I have posted? It doesn’t seem so. It seems that you are injecting many considerations which are no more than red herring tactics and expecting those tactics to somehow undermine what I have posted. The fact of the matter is that either Luther published those anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic pamplets and promoted coersion and violence or he didn’t.
Again one thing. I posted this material as one aspect of a whole list of things which contributed to the Reformation. Ergo, many things.
Nope, I wished to make the point I made. I made that point as well as making many other points about factors which contributed to the Reformation.
Affective fallacy.
It’s there.
For someone who is not sidestepping the issue your posts certainly seem to have racked up an astonishing number of red herrings.
Compare the wording of Luther’s program with Hitler’s program. What was not clear?
Please explain to me how that is not clear?
His anti-Jewish program was lifted from Luther’s program. Read it. Then comment.
Strawman. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Strawman. Please do not put words in my mouth. I pointed to Luther’s anti-Jewish program. I pointed to Hitler’s anti-Jewish program. I do not have to prove that Luther was the inspiration for Hitler. I only have to prove that the influence was there and that Hitler drew on it. I have proven that. This is not rocket science, Mr Contarini.
I see. And there were no psycho-social factors involved? And Luther just did not have the intellectual or moral wherewithall to choose differently? Is that what you are suggesting here, Mr Contarini? That the pre_Reformation tradition forced Luther to persecute the Jews?
Red herring. Either Luther said and did what he did viz the Jews. Or he didn’t. Either Hitler borrowed from Luther or he didn’t. Thing is, the evidence is there. Pointing to extraneous factors does not change the connection between the two historical figures.
I am aware of all this, Mr Contarini. But it does not change the choices which Luther himself made. As for whether or not I will be convinced, please let me be the judge of that. OK? Thank you. end of post
One of the great credentials of authenticity for the HCC in its 2,000 years of contributions which have been a singulalry powerful, profound and pervasive force on Western Civilization. The HCC invented modern education and the university as we know them today. Universities received charters from the Pope and were usually connected with major cathedrals after the first millenium.
The only specific claim I take issue with from the CE is the claim that scholars are unanimous in blaming Luther for the peasants’ war. That probably wasn’t true in 1911, and it certainly isn’t true now. I refer you to Peter Blickle’s monograph, *The Revolution of 1525. *Blickle has no brief for Luther, as his other work *Communal *Reformation shows. He gives Luther due blame for his sycophantic support of the princes’ brutal repression of the revolt, and he points out that the peasants were not in fact the ravaging hordes Luther thought they were. But he lays out a number of causes for the war–there were social and economic and political causes as well as religious, and the peasants were capable of thinking for themselves and did not take Luther’s ideas blindly. As for the repression, I’m very dubious as to whether Luther’s support made it any worse, but he’s certainly to be blamed for egging the princes on to do what they wanted to do anyway.
Asking you to give one single example to support your generalizations is not a red herring. It’s perfectly reasonable, and your failure to do so demonstrates that you have nothing substantive to offer. All you can do is bluster. You can’t name one Catholic who was forcibly converted to Protestantism under threat of death. You can’t even give a specific example of confiscation of [private] property, though I haven’t denied that this may have happened. I have asked you three times now. You made this claim–you need to support it.
But you are claiming more than that Luther published anti-Jewish pamphlets. You claimed that he is responsible for Hitler’s policies because Hitler was following Luther. Obviously to show this, you need to show that Luther was saying something new and different. If you want to argue that Luther is responsible for not breaking with the medieval tradition of anti-Judaism, I’ll agree with you 100%. Similarly with “coercion and violence.” Certainly Luther was in favor of religious violence (on the part of the state–he never supported any kind of popular uprising, though some of the things he said before 1525 could be misinterpreted in that direction) under certain circumstances. I.e., he thought that governments had the right to maintain good order, and that for Christian governments this included punishing those who engaged in open blasphemy or otherwise disturbed the religious peace. I think that what you mean by “anti-Catholic pamphlets” promoting violence is Luther’s remarks to the effect that bishops and popes deserved to be killed, etc. He did indeed say those things, but that is not what I was disputing. You still have not provided one example of a conversion to Protestantism under threat of death or even under threat of confiscation.
It is neither an “affective” nor any other kind of fallacy to infer that you intended to write a coherent paragraph in which the things you said were connected with each other. I apologize if I rated your skills in self-expression too highly.
Saying so does not make the missing evidence magically appear. This is getting ridiculous. If you had the examples I’m asking for you would repeat them.
Your definition of a “red herring” appears to be any point that refutes your claims.
Well, for one thing Luther didn’t advocate the slaughter of the Jews (admittedly Hitler didn’t advocate that at first). However, my point was that Luther was himself drawing on an older tradition of anti-Judaism–something you appear to admit. Therefore, it is irrational to single Luther out.
“Lifted directly” were your precise words–you even quoted them in your last post, and you repeated the word “lifted” in this post. How is it putting words in your mouth to quote precisely what you said? You really do have an interesting approach to the English language. Red herrings are any arguments you can’t refute, and direct quotation is “putting words in your mouth”!
You said “lifted directly.” That does imply that Luther was the sole or primary influence. Otherwise you don’t have a “direct lifting.”
No, it’s just confusing language. I am not responsible for your failure to say what you mean. I assume naively that “lifted directly” really means “lifted directly”–as in the one comes straight from the other. Now I learn that 'lifted directly" really means "drew on along with many other things (including, if Hitler’s own words are to believed, the Catholic anti-Jewish tradition from which Luther himself drew).
Sure–whatever that means.
No. The point is that it’s silly to single out Luther by saying that Hitler “lifted” his anti-Jewish program “directly” from Luther, when you know quite well that Luther was one among many sources (indeed, I think that Luther’s primary responsibility–and that of the Catholic Church as well–was creating cultural attitudes that shaped Hitler and made his vicious idea seem credible; this is quite different from “lifting directly”). If I accused you of lifting your opinions directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, you would quite rightly point out that the CE is just one among several sources on which you have drawn.