Lutheran - another Confederate Flag

2456

Comments

  • Ooooh, and it's a lovely day in the neighborhood! Biden won, and all's right with the world. What's this I see? (bends over) Sniff, sniff. Oh dear. Whatever.

    Bye, dude.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Not going to feed the troll any more.

    This was the correct answer.
  • Ooooh, and it's a lovely day in the neighborhood! Biden won, and all's right with the world. What's this I see? (bends over) Sniff, sniff. Oh dear. Whatever.

    Bye, dude.

    Somebody else's dog, somebody else's baggie?
  • Well, I hope it was a dog...
  • Well, I hope it was a dog...

    Holy crap.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Lutheranism is diametrically opposite and opposed to Christ.

    @Martin54 , here is some suggested reading about one Lutheran pastor's struggle to reconcile her faith with the discovery that her family was Jewish and suffered terribly in the Holocaust. I know the author. She is more committed to social justice than any other member of the clergy I know. She is still a Lutheran pastor, quite a wonderful one I might add, and if there is one thing she is definitely not, it is a hypocrite.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I've let this go for a while despite my concerns that it was more a vehicle for ranting than serious discussion. Which would make it more suitable for Hell.

    Taking that point to Host board for further discussion. Meanwhile, I recommend to interested Shipmates that they consider the difference between dogmatic assertions of conclusions and engagement in serious discussion.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Lutheranism is diametrically opposite and opposed to Christ.

    Wow, Jesus sold indulgences ? I'd never have thought it...
  • Fascinating.

    The damage done by the 500 year old square circle of sola gratia, sola fide, of the work of faith in Christ being required for salvation of the elect, rather than salvation for all assured by the faith of Christ. i.e. Christ's faithfulness, by Christ electing to be faithful, cannot be understated. They are diametrically opposed opposites. Faith in Christ as the determinant of salvation for a tiny minority negates His faithfulness to all.

    Why would anyone want to believe in Luther's medieval schoolboy error? What fascinates me is how and why he did it. I realise it was just one more adventure in 1500 years of missing the point, a genetic trait expressed to this day on this, of all sites. But I cannot think of a misadventure by the Roman Catholic Church that compares theologically.

    Fascinating.
  • How about the Crusades?
  • Excellent Sojourner, I deliberately excluded that catastrophe as although it was due to theological error with incalculable effects to this day and for the next ten thousand years, that error isn't current. Except, of course, in the minds of Protestant fundamentalists. The RCC didn't sustain it.
  • The exclusion of women from the priesthood in the RCC (and the general treatment of women) is of a similar magnitude, and ongoing.
  • The exclusion of women from the priesthood in the RCC (and the general treatment of women) is of a similar magnitude, and ongoing.

    It doesn't touch the evil of damnationism by, adjectival, excluding faith, by the objective genitive version of the phrase pistis Christou. Luther was unhinged by the medieval abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, long reformed - the infamous selling of indulgence to be in credit for sins not yet committed - and swung even worse, far worse the other way.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Referred to Admin re best location.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • I think we all realise that over the centuries many ,many Christians have 'missed the point'.
    Our understandings change with time and perhaps, or perhaps not, we come in time closer to 'the truth'
    While personally I would be for the ordination of women to the priesthood we have to recognise that over the centuries it was not considered as something which needed to be done.
    Do we now have a final and definitive understanding of the differences and complementaries in the roles of 'men' and 'women' in society ? Is it possible that 'men' and 'women' do not really exist, just like ideas of 'race' and gender' in previous times ?
    Of course we can blame the RC church for its exclusion of women from the sacred preisthood,but then differing Christians have differing ideas as to what constitutes the 'sacred priesthood' or 'order of presbyters. And we have to remember that the Anglican Church had the same idea as well as most of the Churches of the Protestant Reformation.,some of which still do,including the Free Church of Scotland.
    And we dare not forget the Orthodox Church. What is the Orthodox Church's defence of the exclusion of women from the priesthood ?
    I don't mean all this as an example of 'whataboutery' ( a new word I learned on the ship),but we cannot blame only the RC Church for this idea.
  • The thing I take away from all this is that it is generally a bad idea to name any religious, or for that matter, political/education organisation after a famous person.

    When I was a Calvinist, it was standard to repudiate the use of his name to designate any denomination, and I think that is wise. And to this day there is no Calvinist Denomination.

    Martin is Martin, and since I'm hot on Total Life Acceptance, I suppose I have to include Total Martin Acceptance. But were I a Lutheran, I would strongly campaign not to use his name as the name of a Christian Denomination.

    Similarly with Statues, and dead people in Churches (when they can afford it). In this case we can see the advantages of Judaism-Islam in not giving this degree of permanent honour to men known to be sinful and usually a lot more sinful than known.

    One area I agree with Luther is that SFAIK he repeatedly described himself as a Shitbag. He wasn't always wrong.
  • Luther complained constantly about his chronic constipation and haemorrhoids...not necessarily a metaphorical shitbag...
  • Adminly hat on

    Purg hosts thought this would be better in Hell, so that's where we are now. Play less nicely, or something.

    DT
    SoF admin
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Fascinating. The most important discussion, issue in Protestantism, it's core premiss, its framing story, is relegated to Hell. Is that too Stygian?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I think we all realise that over the centuries many ,many Christians have 'missed the point'.
    Our understandings change with time and perhaps, or perhaps not, we come in time closer to 'the truth'
    While personally I would be for the ordination of women to the priesthood we have to recognise that over the centuries it was not considered as something which needed to be done.
    No, it was not considered something that should be done, and still considered so my many. Need is irrelevant to the idea.

  • Forthview wrote: »
    I agree that it is an understatement to say that Luther was anti Semitic but he was so much more than that and we have to try to see the bigger picture.
    Many people in what might have been called 'Christendom' in the past were anti Semitic and anti Muslim. If we put aside Martin Luther we would need to put aside many many others.
    Until fairly recent decades most people who counted themselves as 'European' would have seen it as fairly normal that they were part of a superior 'race' . We cannot simply dismiss everything that' European' society has done because they either explicitly or implicitly considered themselves to be superior to others.

    Many societies and many religions have considered themselves as superior to others,often in particular to those who are most like themselves.
    The difference is, as has been mentioned, is that the source of Luther's anti-Semitism is the source of his other theologies. That (insert group here) has had prejudicial practice is different to those being practices being integral to the concept of their existence.
    Whilst I am not pronounceing my judgement on the continued inclusion of Luther's name, the question Martin brings up is completely valid.
    No one is perfect, but at what level do those imperfections negate the veneration of the individual for other reasons?
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited November 2020
    One of the things I remember from A-level history was that although many of Luther's writings were translated into English from German, the anti-Semitic stuff wasn't. When it finally was, people were really shocked about how bad it was. But it was well known in Germany and helped made the Nazi's teaching about Jews more acceptable.

    The school library did have one of the first English translations because - the history teacher argued - you couldn't fully understand Luther and his theology without knowing he was extremely anti-Semitic, even by the standards of the time. And because he believed you couldn't just pretend these writings didn't exist when they're a matter of historical record.

    I have no clue how you'd address that in order to make things right or unpick things theologically. At this point, I shall mumble something about it not being my place as an ally to decide that sort of stuff.
  • An open question, was he anti-Semitic or anti-Judaist? As murderously the latter as he was, does that make him the former? Apparently Judaic Evangelical converts were fine. I realise de facto he was both, as the vast majority of ethnic Jews (whatever that means; Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Khazar) were adherents of Judaism. English Puritan Protestantism became positively pro-Semitic by comparison with 150 years.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    An open question, was he anti-Semitic or anti-Judaist? As murderously the latter as he was, does that make him the former? Apparently Judaic Evangelical converts were fine. I realise de facto he was both, as the vast majority of ethnic Jews (whatever that means; Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Khazar) were adherents of Judaism. English Puritan Protestantism became positively pro-Semitic by comparison with 150 years.

    I've only ever heard him described as anti-Semitic. It's worth noting the Lutheran church in it's various guises around the the world has been very vocal in condemning that aspect of his legacy.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    An open question, was he anti-Semitic or anti-Judaist? As murderously the latter as he was, does that make him the former? Apparently Judaic Evangelical converts were fine. I realise de facto he was both, as the vast majority of ethnic Jews (whatever that means; Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Khazar) were adherents of Judaism. English Puritan Protestantism became positively pro-Semitic by comparison with 150 years.

    I've only ever heard him described as anti-Semitic. It's worth noting the Lutheran church in it's various guises around the the world has been very vocal in condemning that aspect of his legacy.

    Aye. All of his legacy stands condemned, notwithstanding the initial courage nailed to the door at Wittenberg, in standing up to medieval Roman Catholic cash penance in advance. How his thinking up sola fide developed with that I don't know. Chicken, egg?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Martin54 one thing I'm a bit puzzled by. Unless I'm completely wrong, I thought you were in the UK. This is a country where there are virtually no Lutherans and never have been. So why this obsession?

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Fascinating. The most important discussion, issue in Protestantism, it's core premiss, its framing story, is relegated to Hell. Is that too Stygian?
    Obviously I'm not a Host down here but you could always ask in the Styx. Hell's not a relegation anyway.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Fascinating. The most important discussion, issue in Protestantism, it's core premiss, its framing story, is relegated to Hell. Is that too Stygian?
    Obviously I'm not a Host down here but you could always ask in the Styx. Hell's not a relegation anyway.
    It kinda is. Given the lower circulation. And the way points are sometimes obscured by personal attacks and the hosts do not herd the discussion towards the actual topic.
    Serious discussions can, and do, happen in Hell. But there is no guarantee of that.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Enoch wrote: »
    @Martin54 one thing I'm a bit puzzled by. Unless I'm completely wrong, I thought you were in the UK. This is a country where there are virtually no Lutherans and never have been. So why this obsession?

    All Protestants, all Evangelicals (Luther's term for a real, elect Christian, i.e. a Protestant), are sola fide are they not? All damnationist, at least hypothetically, like Barth. Even Lewis. Lutheran by nature, though not by name. All Anglicans I have known in 15 years. All the clergy. Bar one probably. It's not something that can be discussed.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I realise de facto he was both, as the vast majority of ethnic Jews (whatever that means; Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Khazar)

    That's on the verge of conspiracy theory.

  • Tubbs wrote: »
    The school library did have one of the first English translations because - the history teacher argued - you couldn't fully understand Luther and his theology without knowing he was extremely anti-Semitic, even by the standards of the time. And because he believed you couldn't just pretend these writings didn't exist when they're a matter of historical record.

    I have no clue how you'd address that in order to make things right or unpick things theologically. At this point, I shall mumble something about it not being my place as an ally to decide that sort of stuff.

    That's the problem, isn't it? To construct a version of Christianity that's compatible with violent and oppressive anti-Semitism/anti-Judaism requires a whole lot of underlying assumptions, not all of which will be immediately obvious. It's also not something followers of Luther can really leave unaddressed, since a lot of those underlying assumptions might lead them to similarly horrific conclusions (though not necessarily the same ones as Luther).
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    I don't understand @Martin54 how you refer to Luther's anti-semitism as in any way current.

    Further, what fucking squirrel got up your ass on this issue? Why the historical cherry-picking?

    Then you raise another question (sola fide) in a context to which you've already set flame, and then say "It's not something that can be discussed." What, precisely, is your game here? Would you cease the duck-and-weave or just fuck off?

    Where is @Lamb Chopped when I need her?
  • Sort of obvious, isn't it? Martin woke up looking for a fight, and, well...

    I'm not in the mood to oblige. Too many other things going on right now.

    Carry on...
  • I don't understand @Martin54 how you refer to Luther's anti-semitism as in any way current.

    Further, what fucking squirrel got up your ass on this issue? Why the historical cherry-picking?

    Then you raise another question (sola fide) in a context to which you've already set flame, and then say "It's not something that can be discussed." What, precisely, is your game here? Would you cease the duck-and-weave or just fuck off?

    Where is @Lamb Chopped when I need her?

    I don't. How do you imagine I do?

    The squirrel is the heresy at the core of the Reformation.

    Not another question. It can't be discussed in any church setting. Bar one perfectly constrained one.

    The game is that Luther's murderous anti-Juda/Semit-ism is just an outworking of his sola fide, objective genitive Pistis Christou, heresy.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I realise de facto he was both, as the vast majority of ethnic Jews (whatever that means; Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Khazar)

    That's on the verge of conspiracy theory.

    It seems that despite Koestler's 13th tribe, it is. I retract the usage unreservedly.
  • Life is too short...
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    The school library did have one of the first English translations because - the history teacher argued - you couldn't fully understand Luther and his theology without knowing he was extremely anti-Semitic, even by the standards of the time. And because he believed you couldn't just pretend these writings didn't exist when they're a matter of historical record.

    I have no clue how you'd address that in order to make things right or unpick things theologically. At this point, I shall mumble something about it not being my place as an ally to decide that sort of stuff.

    That's the problem, isn't it? To construct a version of Christianity that's compatible with violent and oppressive anti-Semitism/anti-Judaism requires a whole lot of underlying assumptions, not all of which will be immediately obvious. It's also not something followers of Luther can really leave unaddressed, since a lot of those underlying assumptions might lead them to similarly horrific conclusions (though not necessarily the same ones as Luther).

    The problem is that many of the constructions outside Germany were done without any knowledge of the anti-Semitism as those writings weren’t translated into other languages / aren’t widely available.

    The Lutherans have addressed them. Maybe not to Martin’s satisfaction, but it’s not like they haven’t tried.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Sorry @Martin54, No. Your logic appears to be,
    Martin Luther was anti-semitic.
    ⇒ Martin Luther advocated 'sola fide'.
    ⇒ Martin Luther started the Reformation alone and has sole responsibility for it.
    ⇒ Therefore, sola fide is anti-semitic.
    ⇒ Therefore everybody who has belonged to any Reformation Communion since is an anti-semite whether they like it or not, and irrespective of what they think on anything.

    None of those arrows follows.


  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    The school library did have one of the first English translations because - the history teacher argued - you couldn't fully understand Luther and his theology without knowing he was extremely anti-Semitic, even by the standards of the time. And because he believed you couldn't just pretend these writings didn't exist when they're a matter of historical record.

    I have no clue how you'd address that in order to make things right or unpick things theologically. At this point, I shall mumble something about it not being my place as an ally to decide that sort of stuff.

    That's the problem, isn't it? To construct a version of Christianity that's compatible with violent and oppressive anti-Semitism/anti-Judaism requires a whole lot of underlying assumptions, not all of which will be immediately obvious. It's also not something followers of Luther can really leave unaddressed, since a lot of those underlying assumptions might lead them to similarly horrific conclusions (though not necessarily the same ones as Luther).

    The problem is that many of the constructions outside Germany were done without any knowledge of the anti-Semitism as those writings weren’t translated into other languages / aren’t widely available.

    The Lutherans have addressed them. Maybe not to Martin’s satisfaction, but it’s not like they haven’t tried.

    I know they have @Tubbs. But that flag must come down. It's an obscenity. But maybe it should be kept, because it easily enables the targeting of the heresy behind it.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Sorry @Martin54, No. Your logic appears to be,
    Martin Luther was anti-semitic.
    ⇒ Martin Luther advocated 'sola fide'.
    ⇒ Martin Luther started the Reformation alone and has sole responsibility for it.
    ⇒ Therefore, sola fide is anti-semitic.
    ⇒ Therefore everybody who has belonged to any Reformation Communion since is an anti-semite whether they like it or not, and irrespective of what they think on anything.

    None of those arrows follows.


    Your logic doesn't appear to be.
  • Life is too short...

    It's good to know your limitations.
  • Tonight is the 82nd anniversary of what is called in Germany Reichskristallnacht with the burning of synagogues and smashing of glass.
    In Austria it is known as November Pogrom and at a special ceremony the present day Austrian Chancellor recalled the events and regretted the humiliation of Jewish citizens of Vienna on that day.

    The word 'Pogrom' makes me ask how it was that Martin Luther's antisemitism affected in such a way the Russian Czarist Empire ?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Life is too short...

    It's good to know your limitations.

    Just fuck off.

    @Forthview in @Martin54 's view, undoubtedly it was the work of Russian Lutherans, nasty settlers in Ukraine, those very violent Mennonites, though I can't figure the German etymological root for громят.
  • Sorry. I missed the edit window gromyat' = to break apart violently. The grom- root gets a prefix po- (multi-valent meanings) to give you pogrom.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Life is too short...

    It's good to know your limitations.

    Just fuck off.

    @Forthview in @Martin54 's view, undoubtedly it was the work of Russian Lutherans, nasty settlers in Ukraine, those very violent Mennonites, though I can't figure the German etymological root for громят.

    What an interesting nerve point.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Life is too short...

    It's good to know your limitations.

    Just fuck off.

    @Forthview in @Martin54 's view, undoubtedly it was the work of Russian Lutherans, nasty settlers in Ukraine, those very violent Mennonites, though I can't figure the German etymological root for громят.

    What an interesting nerve point.

    One of the most irritating (and, God knows, there's quite a selection) aspects of your discourse is your deliberate obscurity. If you fancy yourself a latter day Heraclitus, you're well off the mark. If you've got a point to make, would you make it, please? PLEASE? Or just get back on your meds.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Forthview wrote: »
    The word 'Pogrom' makes me ask how it was that Martin Luther's antisemitism affected in such a way the Russian Czarist Empire ?

    Probably in the same way that Lutherans were able to convince right-wing French Catholics to persecute Captain Dreyfus, and ship Jews off to the camps under Vichy.

    The malevolent power of Lutheranism knows no bounds. Even today, vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues is incited by subliminal messages sent out via re-runs of Davey And Goliath.

  • I'd like to see evidence that the last Tsar knew much at all about Lutheranism. Maybe from his wife, you suppose? From what I've read of her she wasn't exactly a scholar.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    The word 'Pogrom' makes me ask how it was that Martin Luther's antisemitism affected in such a way the Russian Czarist Empire ?

    Probably in the same way that Lutherans were able to convince right-wing French Catholics to persecute Captain Dreyfus, and ship Jews off to the camps under Vichy.

    The malevolent power of Lutheranism knows no bounds. Even today, vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues is incited by subliminal messages sent out via re-runs of Davey And Goliath.
    If they would rip-of Gumby, they would stoop to anything

  • @mousethief, since that is a serious thought, there was in fact a pietist 'fashion' in Russian Orthodoxy amongst the middle classes from about the 1860s onward. It was, in a sense, an echo of the Protestant Great Awakening. (I'd be more precise had I more of my library with me. Sorry.) Going from memory, there is in English reference to this in, I think, a biography of Konstantin Leontiev*, or article about KL, by Stephen Lukashevich. If I'm wrong, apologies. I'd say that the pietist influence among some Orthodoxen was more a matter of style than substance. It certainly predated the Tsaritsa's arrival in Russia. As to Nicholas, there's no evidence that he knew much about anything. His English was pretty good.

    * In Leontiev's case, his mother was very much an adherent to this fashion, and definitely had an influence - in a strange way - on Leontiev's thought.
Sign In or Register to comment.