Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
More than once during these talks I referred to Luther and what always occurred to me as his destructive influence. I pointed out that even in such an admirable book as Rohan Butler's “The Roots of National Socialism” the spiritual origins of Nazism and Luther's influence had not been given the necessary importance. Then I was asked if I would be prepared to elaborate to them—about a dozen of the very senior boys, that is—my own views on Luther and Lutheranism. I agreed—with the proviso that they would be my own views and nothing else. Admittedly, I had read more on Luther and about Luther than on most other subjects. But I wanted to make it quite clear that I would not speak to them with the voice of a great authority, but would merely give them my own interpretation. I told them, moreover, that I should try to prove how dangerous it is to accept legends; and that the picture I had of Luther and his influence was thoroughly contradictory of the customary Luther of the legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicapologetics.info ...
“That’s logically equivalent to arguing that the state’s failure to prosecute so-and-so for some crime amounts to condoning the crime.”
But it does by its inaction. Look at the proliferation of the spousal abuse defense, or the diversionary regimens for drug/alcohol crimes.
You mean this Protestant Church?
“In 1936, the Reich Church was created. This did not have the Christian cross as its symbol but the swastika. The Bible was replaced by “Mein Kampf” which was placed on the altar. By it was a sword. Only invited Nazis were allowed to give sermons in a Reich Church. “
I suggest you get yourself a copy of “Nazi Culture” by George L. Mosse and read the chapter on the religion the Nazis created. They had no use for Christianity of any sort.
Slandering the man who did that is not love.
Well, yeah.
“That’s right, Luther was present at the Inquisition and tortured Jews.”
Source?
If you want to mock Paul that's your choice. I didn't invent the words. I just wrote them down for you that you might believe and be saved.
Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
It speaks volumes when The Gospel is presented you mock it, or say it's not enough. You condemn yourselves looking for that little extra.
I wasn’t there.
I’ll trust God’s absolute mercy and justice to sort it all out.
What charge?
But yet you hesitate to present The Gospel when give the opportunity.
“born, raised and practicing” Protestants that I don’t believe that he would consider credible so his argument was based on an incorrect assumption.”
He was not defending all “born, raised and practicing protestants” since that category has been divided among other things between liberal (those you have mentioned) and evangelicals. Perhaps you should mention some evangelicals. The Roman Catholic Church is a “big tent” church accommodating the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Cornwell and has no such divisions.
You wrote:
“I’m curious to learn what nation Martin Luther was a “nationalist” of, considering Germany wasn’t unified until 1860.”
Well, you’ve made two errors.
1) You meant 1870, not 1860.
2) Germany did exist, but as a series of principalities within the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V (Carlos I of Spain) was the Holy Roman Emperor. Long before his time it was expected that the H.R.E. would become King of Germany before becoming H.R.E. Frederick II, for instance, became King of Germany in 1196, but did not become H.R.E. until 1209. In Luther’s youth, dukes ruled the German states, so there was no united Germany, but Luther still wrote of Germania. Roland Bainton, the famous Protestant biographer of Luther, backs this up entirely: http://books.google.com/books?id=IwyGxoDKk1wC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=luther+german+nationalism&source=web&ots=xVJU6H49Zc&sig=_u48l8SMnwP-xz6PPRfBoJe1TtQ&hl=en#PPA130,M1
Germany.
He wrote that he wanted to make Moses sound so German that people would forget he was a Jew.
Amen, Quix.
Talking to a bishop is not the same thing as humbly placing yourself under his spiritual care.
Hitler was much more interested in killing clergy than in believing what they preached.
Are those even German clergy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.