Sort of like the modern Lincoln Project: he was no friend of the People, but for a little while they shared a common enemy.

What is it about him you were looking to discuss?

Penny for your thoughts on the other German (and Martin)? — dimension72

The worst thing to happen to Christianity as a whole.
Lets discuss!

I started reading about him because of his hymns and advocacy for music. J.S. Bach and other composers of the north German organ school, whose compositions I've studied, used Luther's and Lutheran hymns in their works.

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. The three parts of Christendom which Luther said should be memorized and constantly repeated are the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. St. Augustine had a large influence on Luther and is referenced throughout his major works.

In the Smalcald Articles (1537) Luther said of the papacy: "The pope is not, according to divine law or God's Word, the head of all Christendom. This name belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ." And so as seen here Luther was in stark opposition to the pope and the government of the Roman Catholic Church. He also held contention with the mass in the papacy, the invocation of saints, and monastic vows.

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. — dimension72

Example of how cultural stupidity gets transferred to the next generation. Head of the household? Discipline the family in the Protestant Canon? I would advise intelligent parents to teach their kids critical thinking and bring them up to date on the advances and discoveries of science. There's no need to confuse things with the old Hebrews: contrary to popular opinion, Paul was not an educated man.

↪Pro Hominem I started reading about him because of his hymns and advocacy for music. J.S. Bach and other composers of the north German organ school, whose compositions I've studied, used Luther's and Lutheran hymns in their works.

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. The three parts of Christendom which Luther said should be memorized and constantly repeated are the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. St. Augustine had a large influence on Luther and is referenced throughout his major works.

In the Smalcald Articles (1537) Luther said of the papacy: "The pope is not, according to divine law or God's Word, the head of all Christendom. This name belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ." And so as seen here Luther was in stark opposition to the pope and the government of the Roman Catholic Church. He also held contention with the mass in the papacy, the invocation of saints, and monastic vows. — dimension72

You haven't asked a question yet, so it will be difficult for anyone to engage with this thread. You seem to admire some of his ideas and contributions, but what is it you are looking for from this board?

Do you want people to argue the merits of particular doctrines? If so, your thread should start with a position on something, say, "headship in the family", and then you could lay out your beliefs citing Luther and invite others to raise objections or observations. If you are going to do that, you should post in a theology related section, as well.

You need to invite discussion of a particular idea if you want participation, not just say "Luther: discuss".

I hope this is helpful. It is meant to be. Good luck.

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. — dimension72

Luther's ideas were the initial crack that eventually destroyed christian hegemony in Europe and brought its secularization. A disgrace ...

Luther's ideas were the initial crack that eventually destroyed christian hegemony in Europe and brought its secularization. A disgrace ... — Gus Lamarch

"That's how the light gets in."

"That's how the light gets in." — 180 Proof

"The sparks were already there after the fall of Constantinople..."

the initial crack — Gus Lamarch

He was predated (fairly significantly) by both Wycliffe and Hus, to name the most well-known examples. Luther's advantage wasn't his novelty or the strengths of his arguments, it was the power of his patron.

Also, the Catholic Church had cooperatively arranged itself into the form of a straw man with a huge target on its chest.

He was predated (fairly significantly) by both Wycliffe and Hus — Pro Hominem

Absolutely correct! But they were the proof that Catholicism was still strong enough to erase - in the case of Lollardism - or to simply make it forgotten - in the case of the Hussites - I'm not ignoring the fact that the Hussites were one of the biggest pre-reformation clashes against Catholic hegemony in Germania. I was refering more to the territories controlled by the Catholic church to the west of central Europe - such as France, England, Iberia, and Italy - - to the masses.

Also, the Catholic Church had cooperatively arranged itself into the form of a straw man with a huge target on its chest. — Pro Hominem

How so? Clarify your thoughts more, please.

"We ought first to know that there are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden. Therefore whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God's commandments."

"The first and highest, the most precious of all good works is faith..."

Luther was an authentic revolutionary within the Christian tradition, he shattered the power of the Priest cast. But tragically he was never able to get beyond the ideological power of Christianity itself. If we had lived in the time of Luther we would have been terribly burdened by the papacy, and life was already hard enough. Luther freed the poor from this ideology but left the general ideology of Christianity intact. Instead of the monarchy of the papacy the structure of the Church become more democratic. Nevertheless it was still an authoritarian structure, but the leaders of the Church were now subject to the criteria of scripture, held accountable by the congregation.

Luther's position is legitimately reduced to subjective emotivism:

"...if these things are done with such faith that we believe that they please God, then they are praiseworthy, not because of their virtue, but because of such faith, for which all works are of equal value, as has been said."

Here the sole criteria of truth is not scripture, but one's belief regarding the authentic status of one's faith.

"In brief, nothing can be in or about us and nothing can happen to us but that it must be good and meritorious, if we believe (as we ought) that all things please God."

All quotes taken from: A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication by Dr. Martin Luther, 1520 Published in: Works of Martin Luther_ Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol. 1, pp. 173-285.

How so? Clarify your thoughts more, please. — Gus Lamarch

Schism, moral turpitude of Renaissance popes, deep ignorance among the clergy, etc., etc. Basically all the stuff that would have required the Counter-Reformation even if there had been no Reformation in the first place.

The Church had become an easy target.

The Church had become an easy target. — Pro Hominem

There are some who say that the secularism that we currently experience would happen during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe if it were not for Luther's reform and all the movement that would come out of his protests - of course, probably without the technology we currently have -. Christianity, in fact, had already been weakening thanks to the stability and economic prosperity of the 12th and 13th centuries - in western and central Europe, excluding Iberia, and southern Italy -.

The worst thing to happen to Christianity as a whole. — Gus Lamarch

Luther's ideas were the initial crack that eventually destroyed christian hegemony in Europe and brought its secularization. A disgrace ... — Gus Lamarch

There's something more basic wrong here.
Those folk in these conflicts are supposedly talking on behalf of an almighty, caring deity, that could set the record straight in a heartbeat for all to see.
It sort of looks a bit like: if you're part of these conflicts, then you're part of the problem.
A presumption among them is that there already is a definite authority, except that authority is absent, quiet. No divine arbiter.
Kind of says something about the centuries of apologia.

All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. — Eric Brahm

… religions create violence over four scarce resources: access to divine will, knowledge, primarily through scripture; sacred space; group privileging; and salvation. Not all religions have or use these four resources. He believes that religious violence is particularly untenable as these resources are never verifiable and, unlike claims to scare resources such a water or land, cannot be adjudicated objectively. — Hector Avalos

… because religions claim to have divine favor for themselves, over and against other groups, this sense of self-righteousness leads to violence because conflicting claims of superiority, based on unverifiable appeals to God, cannot be objectively adjudicated. — Hector Avalos

It is a peculiar habit of God’s that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people’s control. — Patricia Crone

Those folk in these conflicts are supposedly talking on behalf of an almighty, caring deity, that could set the record straight in a heartbeat for all to see. — jorndoe

Truth. All actions and, consequently, all errors and successes are causes of human action. The point is that faith exists, has always existed and will always exist. We live in this historic cycle of rise, apex, decadence and fall. This applies even to religion - Rise, apex, secularization, fall -. At a time like ours, where we can see and study why we act as we do and exist in the way we have always existed, we must also be able to assume the mistakes, but be motivated by the successes and try to reproduce them. Kierkegaard would say this already:

"Leap of faith - yes, but only after reflection"

It sort of looks a bit like: if you're part of these conflicts, then you're part of the problem. — jorndoe

It demonstrates a consciousness that was unable to get behind the mirage of social constructs, or to put it another way, a consciousness that was totally given over to idealism. As much as one thought they had escaped the error by separating themselves from particular attributes of idealism, they were still entirely locked in the system. The higher awareness has always sided with those who have the ability to comprehend that religious ideas, are in fact, social ideas.

In taking on the Church as he did as a requirement of individual conscience, he mapped out the mind space of future expressions.
The rejection of the established Church as the necessary way to connect to God surprised Luther when people heard that as requiring a removal of state authority.
What the hell were they thinking?

:scream:

Luther was mean, and polemic person, against minorities. Such as Jews, and perhaps one key figures behind the antisemitic holocaust. Perhaps even inspired Hitler, and other Nazis with his work that he dedicated to Jews. He was an author behind "On the Jews and their lies.". And Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that Luther was his inspiration. Also Nazis did commit the horrors, literally in many ways as mentioned in his book. Luther is nowadays kinda famous among Neo-Nazis.

Luther was mean, and polemic person, against minorities. Such as Jews, and perhaps one key figures behind the antisemitic holocaust. Perhaps even inspired Hitler, and other Nazis with his work that he dedicated to Jews. He was an author behind "On the Jews and their lies.". And Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that Luther was his inspiration. Also Nazis did commit the horrors, literally in many ways as mentioned in his book. Luther is nowadays kinda famous among Neo-Nazis. — batsushi7

Well then, how do you explain this:

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. — dimension72

Luther was mean, and polemic person, against minorities. Such as Jews, and perhaps one key figures behind the antisemitic holocaust. Perhaps even inspired Hitler, and other Nazis with his work that he dedicated to Jews. He was an author behind "On the Jews and their lies.". And Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that Luther was his inspiration. Also Nazis did commit the horrors, literally in many ways as mentioned in his book. Luther is nowadays kinda famous among Neo-Nazis. — batsushi7

Martin Luther was not bad for destroying a structure that kept Europe stable and hegemonic for over 500 years. He was horrible because he was a Nazi.

Only good idea Luther ever said, was "faith by alone", what means for most Christians, that you don't have to attend church or christian rituals at all, and leads people to situation, where they simply don't need Church anymore, because just faith is enough. I'm glad his ideas have secularized Church much as they have done, also made people live's easier.

There are some who say that the secularism that we currently experience would happen during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe if it were not for Luther's reform and all the movement that would come out of his protests - of course, probably without the technology we currently have -. Christianity, in fact, had already been weakening thanks to the stability and economic prosperity of the 12th and 13th centuries - in western and central Europe, excluding Iberia, and southern Italy -. — Gus Lamarch

I'd say he lent more to the development of democracy and individualism than secularism. The scientific revolution and the decline of monarchy were more responsible for the rise of secularism, in my opinion.

As has been pointed out already, Luther was rabidly antisemitic and his teaching is probably one of the factors that ultimately led to the Holocaust. The Catholics at the time used it against him: they painted him as a dangerous firebrand by pointing at his antisemitism.

My knowledge of Luther is high-school level, but I did read this about him. That while a well-off and comfortably successful young man he was returning home from university through the alps when he encountered a thunderstorm of such violence, apparent danger - fearsomeness - and malevolence that he could not reconcile it with his view of an omnipotent and benevolent God. His view evolved to assigning to God remoteness and omnipotence while assigning to the Christ presence and beneficence, sidestepping the need to reconcile the two in one being - which he could not do.

Well, Luther wasn't a Nazi. That's more than you can say about Heildegger, sorry Heidegger.

:smirk:

The scientific revolution and the decline of monarchy were more responsible for the rise of secularism, in my opinion. — Pro Hominem

True enough.

I'd say he lent more to the development of democracy and individualism than secularism. — Pro Hominem

Individual freedom and democracy are bubbles of secularism too. - Examples could be the Roman Republic period, the Classical Greek period and the Late Bronze Age period -

I've often wondered why sci-fi assassination conceits always involve Hitler. Much more would be gained if you went back in time to kill Luther. This would spare you at least the worst elements of the Thirty Years War, Hegel, Marxism, WWI and WWII including Hitler, plus evangelical religion including the pernicious influence of US pentecostalism, all in one fell swoop. You could even keep a Protestant reformation, just lead by someone who wasn't an utter nutcase (although you'd probably have to assassinate Calvin too).

I've often wondered why sci-fi assassination conceits always involve Hitler. Much more would be gained if you went back in time to kill Luther. This would spare you at least the worst elements of the Thirty Years War, Hegel, Marxism, WWI and WWII including Hitler, plus evangelical religion including the pernicious influence of US pentecostalism, all in one fell swoop. You could even keep a Protestant reformation, just lead by someone who wasn't an utter nutcase (although you'd probably have to assassinate Calvin too) — coolazice

I think Constantine is a better choice. Avoid Christianity/Catholicism altogether.