Log in

View Full Version : Your opinion of Martin Luther?



TheWannabeAnarchist
4th June 2013, 06:59
The man responsible for the Protestant Reformation, not Martin Luther King Jr.

There are some things I admire about him. He was willing to stand up to the Catholic Church, an institution that was (and very much remains) corrupt beyond comprehension. He turned religion into something that the people as a whole had a part in rather than a bunch of dusty Latin texts interpreted by clergy.

Then again, he had other truly reprehensible flaws. He saw women as the root of all of mankind's suffering thanks to Eve. And in his later years he hated the Jews with such a passion that the Nazis showcased and admired his anti-semitic tirade of book, On Jews and Their Lies.

So in short, it is indisputable that Luther was no saint. Still, I can't help but be inspired by his gut.

What do you guys think of him?

BIXX
4th June 2013, 07:13
Personally I don't admire his gut- you wouldn't admire a fascist for wanting to abolish bourgeois politics would you?

The point I'm trying to make is that he had one characteristics, that, on its own could be pretty good. Couple it with all his other crap though, I don't think I can find any respect for him.

Zostrianos
4th June 2013, 07:15
A virulent anti-Semite, whose Reformation ultimately cost countless lives in the savage religious wars of the 17th century. Protestantism itself is a tragic example of a well intentioned movement gone horribly wrong. While it started out as a movement for freedom from the oppressive grip of the Catholic church, just a few decades into it, Protestantism was as bad as the Catholic Church - and today it's much, much worse. Even Protestant offshoots that were more peaceful, like the Quakers, did their share of crimes; the latter wiped out native culture in Alaska, and even outlawed dancing, an old law that only recently was lifted:
http://lawlib.lclark.edu/blog/native_america/?p=3398

bcbm
4th June 2013, 07:20
guts, maybe, but he ultimately ended up condemning the radicals who stood up to the church, sided with some of the german princes and sold the peasants up the river when they revolted. and all the anti-semitism, anti-women stuff mentioned as well.

protestantism is also responsible for the modern 'work ethic' of capitalism so there's that too.

blake 3:17
4th June 2013, 08:47
I'm pro-Luther, but I'm a friggin protestant Blakean.

UnderTheSun
4th June 2013, 15:09
guts, maybe, but he ultimately ended up condemning the radicals who stood up to the church, sided with some of the german princes and sold the peasants up the river when they revolted. and all the anti-semitism, anti-women stuff mentioned as well.

protestantism is also responsible for the modern 'work ethic' of capitalism so there's that too.
No, only if you have an idealistic view of history. Protestantism sprang from the coming bourgeois class and the feudalism beginning it's long death.

TheWannabeAnarchist
4th June 2013, 17:17
Good point. Any man worth more than my spit would have supported the Great Peasant Revolt, not the brutes that crushed it.

In short, all I can say is this: I'm inspired by his strength and passion in fighting for what he believed in, but I despise nearly everything the man stood for. There are a lot of people like that in history--people who did evil things but had extraordinary qualities that we can learn fom nonetheless.

Per Levy
4th June 2013, 18:17
i dont like the guy one bit, he hated the peseants and loved the rich upper class, the lords and so on. if you want a "hero" in that time thomas müntzer and his views would be more you thing id say. also müntzer had more guts than luther did, imo.

Geiseric
4th June 2013, 18:33
Usually the heroes aren't talked about In books, like sam adams, who was calling for slaverys end as far back as 1760, and was leading revolutionary efforts against the brits much much earlier than the founding slaveowners.

TheWannabeAnarchist
4th June 2013, 22:25
Wow, Muntzer does sound interesting! I'd never heard of him before. Seems like he had some pretty progressive ideas for his time.

bcbm
5th June 2013, 09:00
No, only if you have an idealistic view of history. Protestantism sprang from the coming bourgeois class and the feudalism beginning it's long death.

hence 'the creation of the modern work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism) '

and doesn't at all change luther's stance against the peasants in revolt. 'omnia sunt communia' strikes me as a much better idea than siding with 'the coming bourgeois class'

Os Cangaceiros
5th June 2013, 10:08
RH Tawney wrote an interesting review of Weber's book back in the day, in which he kind of plays devil's advocate against the idea that ideology (ie Protestantism) had little to do with capitalism's formation...but then goes back and essentially makes the point that Protestantism was mostly just an excuse by an insurgent social class as they fought for more economic power.

There's some of the article here, unfortunately not all of it though:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h4tRkTKcx_wC&pg=PA189#v=onepage&q&f=false

Os Cangaceiros
5th June 2013, 10:24
Even Protestant offshoots that were more peaceful, like the Quakers, did their share of crimes; the latter wiped out native culture in Alaska, and even outlawed dancing, an old law that only recently was lifted:
http://lawlib.lclark.edu/blog/native_america/?p=3398

Just noticed this bit, yes what happened to indigenous cultures was clearly devastating to native peoples, but what the Quakers did was essentially go into villages and say, hey guys, there was this guy called Jesus you all should know about, and by the way you're sinning in this, this and this way. Indoctrinating people with BS is bad but it's not nearly as bad as what other religious orders did. IE it wasn't a "CONVERT OR DIE" kind of thing

Compare it to the experiences of some coastal Alaskan groups, who seemed to be viewed by the Russians as only being useful as slaves or target practice.

Bostana
5th June 2013, 10:30
Admirable in his resistance against the strict regulations of the Catholic Church. But in the end, just another anti-Semitic religious fanatic fascist who would have his follow raid churches and kill monks and priests.

InvalidPacket
5th June 2013, 15:59
.

TheWannabeAnarchist
5th June 2013, 16:56
Of course. Religious leaders are often a good bit like drug dealers. They both sell cheap fantasies that cause people to drift away from important struggles in the real world.

TheWannabeAnarchist
5th June 2013, 16:58
Calling Luther a hero because his ideas were better than those of the Catholic Church at the time is like calling a drug dealer who sells LSD a hero because other dealers sell worse drugs like heroin.:D

bcbm
5th June 2013, 20:34
who would have his follow raid churches and kill monks and priests.

depending on the monks and priests, this wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing.


Of course. Religious leaders are often a good bit like drug dealers. They both sell cheap fantasies that cause people to drift away from important struggles in the real world.

some of my best friends are drug dealers

Deity
5th June 2013, 21:42
Calling Luther a hero because his ideas were better than those of the Catholic Church at the time is like calling a drug dealer who sells LSD a hero because other dealers sell worse drugs like heroin.:D

I mean... I would consider LSD far better for people than heroin, however Catholics and Protestants are almost one and the same.

UnderTheSun
5th June 2013, 23:12
Calling Luther a hero because his ideas were better than those of the Catholic Church at the time is like calling a drug dealer who sells LSD a hero because other dealers sell worse drugs like heroin.:D
In a scenario where just about everyone takes heroin and would never consider going cold turkey and taking no drugs, the inventor of LSD is a great hero.