Again, that’s a common opinion for a circlejerking atheist Internet forum. It’s not at all an acceptable position for a cleric of the Church.
Luther was a priest who presumed to correct the Christian Church on matters of the faith. He sounds like a fifteen year old neckbeard who has his head squarely ensconced in his own ass.
To be fair, one of the big things he “presumed to correct” the church on was indulgences, which I think even the Catholic Church is now like, “yeah, that was bad…”
Sure, and I never argued otherwise. The fact that he was able to point out an obviously unjust and despicable practice doesn’t detract from his horrible and unconscionable teachings on other subjects.
But how do his teachings compare to others of the time, especially the Catholic Church? If you try to apply 21st Century morality to 16th Century ideas, you are bound to find ideas to consider “unconscionable.” People at large did some absolutely fucked up shit in the past, but in their times much of what they did was a societal norm
the act of trying to justify or judge the actions of a someone from 5 centuries ago is doomed to failure.
Sorry, but that’s horseshit. Teaching something like this:
If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.
is an objectively reprehensible stance regardless of the cultural context. The rejection of morality, conscience, and Christian teaching by an ordained priest is absolutely worthy of judgment, and the fact that he lived 500 years ago doesn’t change that a bit.
It’s reprehensible now, and with the information we have on hand. If his entire worldview was shaped around hating jews, which wasn’t uncommon among gentiles, then that statement is understandable coming from him at that time.
You need to separate yourself from being a 21st century, moral (at least in this case, I don’t know you), and critically thinking human being that can look in hindsight with centuries of lessons learned.
You just can’t do that because it will never hold up to today’s standards. In 500 years, putting cheese on bread might be seen as taboo, but you would think that’s ridiculous today. It doesn’t matter how serious or silly the topic is, the point is that it will never compare fairly.
Ok, so you think Martin Luther was “a piece of shit.” So now what? Are you saying the impact he had on western civilization should be ignored? Do you want to erase him from history? What are you trying to accomplish?
How the hell did you get any of that out of what I said? His impact on Western civilization can’t be ignored, he fractured the Western Church and people should be made aware of the terrible views he espoused so history can rightly regard him as the miserable asshole he was rather than some force for good mythology has made him out to be.
Again, that’s a common opinion for a circlejerking atheist Internet forum. It’s not at all an acceptable position for a cleric of the Church.
Luther was a priest who presumed to correct the Christian Church on matters of the faith. He sounds like a fifteen year old neckbeard who has his head squarely ensconced in his own ass.
To be fair, one of the big things he “presumed to correct” the church on was indulgences, which I think even the Catholic Church is now like, “yeah, that was bad…”
Sure, and I never argued otherwise. The fact that he was able to point out an obviously unjust and despicable practice doesn’t detract from his horrible and unconscionable teachings on other subjects.
But how do his teachings compare to others of the time, especially the Catholic Church? If you try to apply 21st Century morality to 16th Century ideas, you are bound to find ideas to consider “unconscionable.” People at large did some absolutely fucked up shit in the past, but in their times much of what they did was a societal norm
Other people also having fucked up opinions at the time also don’t justify the truly fucked up opinions and teachings of one specific person.
The social norms and cultural context of the time absolutely matter when you’re reviewing history
Sorry, but that’s horseshit. Teaching something like this:
is an objectively reprehensible stance regardless of the cultural context. The rejection of morality, conscience, and Christian teaching by an ordained priest is absolutely worthy of judgment, and the fact that he lived 500 years ago doesn’t change that a bit.
It’s reprehensible now, and with the information we have on hand. If his entire worldview was shaped around hating jews, which wasn’t uncommon among gentiles, then that statement is understandable coming from him at that time.
You need to separate yourself from being a 21st century, moral (at least in this case, I don’t know you), and critically thinking human being that can look in hindsight with centuries of lessons learned.
You just can’t do that because it will never hold up to today’s standards. In 500 years, putting cheese on bread might be seen as taboo, but you would think that’s ridiculous today. It doesn’t matter how serious or silly the topic is, the point is that it will never compare fairly.
Ok, so you think Martin Luther was “a piece of shit.” So now what? Are you saying the impact he had on western civilization should be ignored? Do you want to erase him from history? What are you trying to accomplish?
How the hell did you get any of that out of what I said? His impact on Western civilization can’t be ignored, he fractured the Western Church and people should be made aware of the terrible views he espoused so history can rightly regard him as the miserable asshole he was rather than some force for good mythology has made him out to be.