Was the Reformation really a good thing?

[Jontg]

I mean, from a religion-neutral perspective. All concepts of heresy or which denomination is Right and Good aside, did anything good really come of Martin Luther and his colleagues? I mean, they tend to be billed in the modern ages as rebels and liberators--but I've been reading a lot lately about what sort of things the Catholic Church was doing at the time, and apart from the whole issue of indulgences, it seems like the Catholics were becoming more moderate in their interpretation of the scriptures, and more tolerant of other religions. Luther, on the other hand, based his entire argument around Biblical literalism, and published material like "On The Jews And Their Lies," which frankly reads like the result of some horrible Nazi time travel experiment. And if Luther hadn't set a precedent and made it seem doable to split from the church and start your own denomination, we wouldn't have loony doctrines like the Puritans and the Calvinists running around. Luther, I'm starting to think, did to Christianity what the New Age movement did to science.

[Hux]

It's pleasant to see Henry VIII not taking the heat for the reformation for a change and that Lutheran religion is given its rightful place. I never understood how Luther ever got away without being burned alive or tortured implacably.

I think it fair to say Luther rebelled against what he saw was Catholic excess, producing, on the way, as you say, the earliest forms of Nazism.

At least the English reformation was based simply on envy. The Catholic church had it all, Henry wanted it, including his own way. He was the 'defender of the faith' but as soon as it didn't suit him and, being in a position to do something about it, he took over all catholic assets, stripped all the establishments and scattered the clergy making many of them outlaw. It was therefore, for the Catholic church - a bad thing.

Nowadays, the reformation is a good thing - even if the results were not foreseen. Henrican religion, Lutheran religion was every bit as offensive as catholic; every bit as crazy, every bit dangerous but, the legacy today is that a considerable amount of non Catholics have become lassaize Faire over religion. (I'm not talking about USA here - you can write your own religious history and then decide if its anything to be proud of)

Thank God for the Reformation, I say. At the very least it polarised different sects of Christianity and it meant we (Europe and England in particular) could Jettison the loudest , craziest mouths to ships and send them Westwards.

[rjh01]

Splits in the church were almost inevitable at the time as printing had just started to be used in a big way. This meant that it was worth people learning to read and educate themselves. This included the knowledge that there were problems with the Church. This was encouraged by the enemies of the Church printing anti Church propaganda.

[Jontg]

Yeah, you can say that, Hux, but I have to live with those people. Couldn't you have sent all the convicts here instead? Who did Australia sleep with to get those guys, dude?!

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Thank God for the Reformation, I say. At the very least it polarised different sects of Christianity and it meant we (Europe and England in particular) could Jettison the loudest , craziest mouths to ships and send them Westwards.

Oh boy. Can of worms slowly being opened...

Total nonsense. The Puritans left England on their own or were expelled because they were considered heretics. By folks who believed God put the King's butt on the throne, Catholics were evil, Native Americans should have their land stolen and/or be killed just for being Native Americans and were just as nutty and intolerant as they were, only under a different name.

And the Puritans actually have a bit of an undeserved reputation as, erhm, well, Puritans. They drank alcohol and believed sex in marriage was sacred. There were even laws to punish husbands and wives who didn't perform their marital duties. And, if memory serves, their kids actually made quite a lot of trouble in Holland with their lewdness.

And if it's America that was so loud and crazy, I wonder how you'd explain Mr. Calvin and his little experiment in Geneva and the Catholics vs. the Huguenots in France. And the little tiff the Catholics and Protestants had in England. And conflicts in practically every single European country.

It was the 1500s- 1700s. Everyone in that time was religious. In Europe, in America, Protestant, Catholic. Don't blame America's relative religiosity today on that.

Especially since America is much more secular than people seem to think. I don't think I personally know more than a handful of people who regularly attend church, whatever their denomination of Christianity. And most of them are immigrants.

[psychictv]

And if Luther hadn't set a precedent and made it seem doable to split from the church and start your own denomination, we wouldn't have loony doctrines like the Puritans and the Calvinists running around.

On the other hand, countries like Germany and England might still look more like Italy in terms of their religiosity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Religiosity

[Jontg]

Everyone I know does--even the Unitarians. Maybe I just live in a bad neighborhood.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Everyone I know does--even the Unitarians. Maybe I just live in a bad neighborhood.

Lol.

What state do you live in?

[Oliver]

I mean, from a religion-neutral perspective. All concepts of heresy or which denomination is Right and Good aside, did anything good really come of Martin Luther and his colleagues? I mean, they tend to be billed in the modern ages as rebels and liberators--but I've been reading a lot lately about what sort of things the Catholic Church was doing at the time, and apart from the whole issue of indulgences, it seems like the Catholics were becoming more moderate in their interpretation of the scriptures, and more tolerant of other religions. Luther, on the other hand, based his entire argument around Biblical literalism, and published material like "On The Jews And Their Lies," which frankly reads like the result of some horrible Nazi time travel experiment. And if Luther hadn't set a precedent and made it seem doable to split from the church and start your own denomination, we wouldn't have loony doctrines like the Puritans and the Calvinists running around. Luther, I'm starting to think, did to Christianity what the New Age movement did to science.


As far I understand it, Luther undermined the Popes authority and thus made criticism of authority popular and acceptable throughout Europe, something being unthinkable before his protest.

As a direct consequence of his revolt, people got liberated in many ways, including being critical of authority, being able to read and understand the holy bible themselves due to translation and most importantly, marking the beginning of a secular society that was forming in Europe.

Maybe without the reform, we might still live in the dark ages concerning individual freedoms.

So in this light I don't think that his criticism of Jews diminishes his bravery against the non-Jewish, Christian authority in any way. It rather seems to be nothing but an ugly side issue concerning his character with pretty much no historical meaning.

[Hux]

Yeah, you can say that, Hux, but I have to live with those people. Couldn't you have sent all the convicts here instead? Who did Australia sleep with to get those guys, dude?!

Sheep. :D

[Hux]

Oh boy. Can of worms slowly being opened...

Total nonsense. The Puritans left England on their own or were expelled because they were considered heretics. By folks who believed God put the King's butt on the throne, Catholics were evil, Native Americans should have their land stolen and/or be killed just for being Native Americans and were just as nutty and intolerant as they were, only under a different name.

And the Puritans actually have a bit of an undeserved reputation as, erhm, well, Puritans. They drank alcohol and believed sex in marriage was sacred. There were even laws to punish husbands and wives who didn't perform their marital duties. And, if memory serves, their kids actually made quite a lot of trouble in Holland with their lewdness.

And if it's America that was so loud and crazy, I wonder how you'd explain Mr. Calvin and his little experiment in Geneva and the Catholics vs. the Huguenots in France. And the little tiff the Catholics and Protestants had in England. And conflicts in practically every single European country.

It was the 1500s- 1700s. Everyone in that time was religious. In Europe, in America, Protestant, Catholic. Don't blame America's relative religiosity today on that.

Especially since America is much more secular than people seem to think. I don't think I personally know more than a handful of people who regularly attend church, whatever their denomination of Christianity. And most of them are immigrants.

It would seem you are in a minority here.
Total nonsense. The Puritans left England on their own or were expelled because they were considered heretics.



Seems a little contradictory, but who cares? either way works. How else would you explain the high density of religious nutjobs per capita in your country than any other western country. Look mate, all Im saying is that we had enough of these idiots. They all screamed persecution when basically they were just a pain in everyones butt.

If the USA 's religiosity has nothing to do with this influx of nut jobs then you are perhaps, in more trouble than you think? :)

[Hux]

Oliver wrote:
So in this light I don't think that his criticism of Jews diminishes his bravery against the non-Jewish, Christian authority in any way. It rather seems to be nothing but an ugly side issue concerning his character with pretty much no historical meaning.

An ugly side issue? :eek:

[Oliver]

Oliver wrote:

An ugly side issue? :eek:


From nowadays perspective, absolutely.

[Hux]

It only contributed to the prevalent atmosphere of anti Semitism in Germany, so ably taken up by little Adolf. I fear its was more than a side issue.

[Oliver]

It only contributed to the prevalent atmosphere of anti Semitism in Germany, so ably taken up by little Adolf. I fear its was more than a side issue.


While I didn't read any quote of Hitler citing Martin Luther yet, Luthers biggest [and unintended] achievement was the split between church and state, so to speak. His "Anti-Semitism", a term not even known back then, may have in some ways contributed to the existing Anti-Semitism back then, but there is no evidence that his views on Judaism had any bigger historical impact whatsoever - in contrast to the prevalent atmosphere itself, of course.

See it this way: Without the Nazis contribution to NASA, we might not have landed on the moon by now. However, the moon landing was an outstanding achievement, was it not in light of the Nazi-part of the program? :confused:

It was, right?

[ddt]

As far I understand it, Luther undermined the Popes authority and thus made criticism of authority popular and acceptable throughout Europe, something being unthinkable before his protest.

As a direct consequence of his revolt, people got liberated in many ways, including being critical of authority, being able to read and understand the holy bible themselves due to translation and most importantly, marking the beginning of a secular society that was forming in Europe.

Maybe without the reform, we might still live in the dark ages concerning individual freedoms.
I disagree with that. Initially, it seemed indeed that Luther undermined authority. The peasants in Southwest Germany and, e.g., Thomas Müntzer, indeed felt encouraged by him to rebel against the worldly authorities who oppressed them.

Luther, in the meantime, saw that he needed the same princes for his reformation to succeed. His pamphlet against the rebelling peasants, calling on the princes to suppress them with all their might, is on par with his antisemitic essay in its viciousness of language. In Luther's own times, his church developed to a set of state churches, sanctioned and controlled by worldly authority, and to the people as a purely religious and non-political entity; much more so than the catholic church in the catholic regions of Germany. In fact, the docility to authority that was practiced by the German Evangelical Church was another factor that helped the rise of Hitler.

It was only later that Calvin indeed posited that the people may depose an unjust ruler. This was a major theological argument in justifying the Dutch rebellion - Calvin's rather tyrannical behaviour in Geneva notwithstanding.


So in this light I don't think that his criticism of Jews diminishes his bravery against the non-Jewish, Christian authority in any way. It rather seems to be nothing but an ugly side issue concerning his character with pretty much no historical meaning.
It is quite in line with his character, I'm afraid.

[Darth Rotor]

I mean, from a religion-neutral perspective.
Yes, unless you were the Pope. At that time, the Pope wasn't just a religious leader, as he is now, but was also a prince/duke owning lands and such. IMO, that was the root of the problem Martin Luther was complaining about. YMMV.

That Martin Luther was, perhaps, in his Old Testament emphasis the original Fundy, is an interesting point to raise. I'll mull that over, you got me thinking. :)

@ HuX: your Halloween avatar is awesome. +2! :)

DR

[Hux]

While I didn't read any quote of Hitler citing Martin Luther yet, Luthers biggest [and unintended] achievement was the split between church and state, so to speak. His "Anti-Semitism", a term not even known back then, may have in some ways contributed to the existing Anti-Semitism back then, but there is no evidence that his views on Judaism had any bigger historical impact whatsoever - in contrast to the prevalent atmosphere itself, of course.

See it this way: Without the Nazis contribution to NASA, we might not have landed on the moon by now. However, the moon landing was an outstanding achievement, was it not in light of the Nazi-part of the program? :confused:

It was, right?

Hitler may never have quoted Luther directly or indirectly but Luther clearly helped consolidate the anti semetic movement that had swept through Europe since earlier medieval times. It was Lutheran 'values' that helped turn an ostensibly Christian and authoritarian country into the horrors of Nazi Germany. I am not saying it was all down to Luther; there are several philosophers that also influenced young Adolf.

As for the NASA part of your post - so what? Werner Von braun worked for NASA in its early years. And?

[Jontg]

Sheep. :D
I thought that was the Welsh.
...
Wait, I'm Welsh.
...
:mgbanghead

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It would seem you are in a minority here.
Total nonsense. The Puritans left England on their own or were expelled because they were considered heretics.



Seems a little contradictory, but who cares? either way works. How else would you explain the high density of religious nutjobs per capita in your country than any other western country. Look mate, all Im saying is that we had enough of these idiots. They all screamed persecution when basically they were just a pain in everyones butt.

If the USA 's religiosity has nothing to do with this influx of nut jobs then you are perhaps, in more trouble than you think? :)


In the 1600s the Puritans weren't much more or less religious than anyone else. Everyone then was a religious nutjob and an "idiot". And they were persecuted - not for being "a pain in the butt" but for political reasons and religious differences - and wanted to escape the King for a pretty good reason.

Not to mention that a century or so later, the colonies created one of the first nations built on a foundation of separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

Linking religion in America today to the first colonists and to a sect that hasn't existed in centuries is like linking the Europe of today to the Middle Ages, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, theocracies, the divine right of kings, the Crusades, the colonization of Asia, Africa and the Americas and the crimes against their native peoples, centuries of strife between Catholics and Protestants and the persecutions of the Jews and Muslims. And even World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, Communist dictatorships, Northern Ireland, strife in the Balkans and other crimes of the last century.

And, oddly, the state the Puritans landed in and helped establish is actually one of the most liberal ones in the Union today. A place where gays can marry and even the Republican Mormon governor was pro choice. As is almost all of New England; how is it that the first English colonies on the East Coast are the least religious ones now? Explain that to me.

As to why America is more religious than other Western nations (it is a mostly secular country but I'll grant you that it is more religious than the rest of the Western world), I really don't know. The Founding Fathers were almost all agnostics, deists, atheists, freethinkers or casual Christians. America was founded on Enlightenment values. There is no state religion or official religion and never was. Not Protestantism, not Christianity. The government has always been secular. It beats me.

Edit: I was raised Catholic and was quite devout. That, however, was because my parents are immigrants from Poland. From my perspective, growing up Polish Catholic in America, America was very secular. Downright anti-religious. It was here that my family stopped going to church regularly.

[Hux]

Not to mention that a century or so later, the colonies created one of the first nations built on a foundation of separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

Good luck with that one.