Martin Luther - Father of western protestant Christianity/ Nazi Holocaust

[moobu2]

Just a friendly reminder that Christianity owns the Nazi Holocaust. Martin Luther, not only founded western Protestantism, he literally laid the foundation for the mass murder of millions of Jews (and quite a few others). In fact, the first Nazi pogrom against the Jews was dedicated to Martin L.

Martin Luther on Wikipedia

LINK
"Martin Luther (November 10, 1483–February 18, 1546) was a German monk, theologian, university professor and church reformer whose ideas inspired the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.
<snip>
His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45"

The theology of Martin Luther has had a profound influence over modern day Protestant Christianity, in particular Luther's interpretation of 'Salvation by faith' which remains the driving ideological justification for the type of Christian evangelism we are so familiar with today. Luther's 'faith' however has a dark side, intolerance and the damnation of dissent and difference and this aspect of both his character and his theology are clearly revealed in one of Luther's less celebrated works 'On the Jews and their lies', justifiably believed to have contributed much to the Nazi Holocaust during the Second World War. Luther's 'salvation by faith' included a doctrine of 'damnation for not believing' and in his case this even included damnation for 'having faith' in doctrines which differed from those doctrines in which Luther had faith. While much emphasis is placed on Luther's doctrine of 'no salvation by works' in truth, an examination reveals that Luther's doctrine of 'faith' was in greater part 'salvation by faith in doctrines' and this leads directly to the modern saying by certain Christian sects that 'I am not without sin, just forgiven' (in otherwords 'works' and 'deeds' are not the criteria used to determination 'salvation' in this expression of the Protestant faith, but rather a person is 'saved' by 'believing doctrine' and it is this belief in correct doctrine that is emphasized by Luther and thus defines what is meant by 'faith'. For example you will hear evangelists teaching that you will be saved 'based on how you answer this question - Who was Jesus' and in the end one is saved by believing certain doctrines (thus having 'faith') and one can also 'claim to be a Christian' but nevertheless 'go to hell' for believing 'incorrect doctrines'). The totalitarian nature of Luther's doctrine of 'faith' and its stubborn insistence on correct 'doctrine' ('faith') is clearly illustrated in Luther's anti-semetic attack on the Jews. The better part of the first half of his essay concentrates on the correct doctrinal interpretation of scriptural passages, interpersed with attacks on the Jewish people for deviating from these orthodox interpretations. In the mid section of his essay Luther gives his advice on how to treat Jews, all of which was put into literal practice by the Nazis during the Holocaust, and in the final section of his essay Luther concentrates on railing at the Jews for not being Christians and for deviating from 'faith' in Christian doctrine (the true means to salvation 'by faith' in the Protestant system Luther developed - salvation by faith in correct beliefs, which explains the Protestant intolerance for deviation in doctrine and the emphasis on 'believing doctrines' which is the defining characteristic of so much protestant religion to this very day).

follow this link for more information about Martin Luther's book 'On Jews and their Lies'

Some other information about the influence Martin Luther had on the Nazi's

What was it that Luther offered that made him so attractive to the Nazis? It was a book-length treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, in which he gave expression to his unbridled, not to say utterly maniacal, detestation of Jews, and which contained more than a hint of genocidal intentions toward them. Luther's vehement attacks on the Jews were frequently recalled and widely disseminated by the Nazis. The original edition of Luther's loathsome volume was exhibited in a special glass case at party rallies in Nuremberg.
In page after page of Hitler's ranting against the Jews in Mein Kampf, one soon comes to realize that echoes of Martin Luther are being heard. Julius Streicher, the chief party ideologist of anti-Semitism, argued in his defense at the Nuremberg trials that he had never said anything about the Jews that Martin Luther had not said four hundred years earlier.
No paraphrase or brief excerpts can give the full flavor of the seething hatred with which Luther assailed the Jews. It has to be read to be believed. He can hardly find words vile enough to describe what he apparently believes are creatures endowed with very little of human qualities. There is no malevolence, crime, immorality, and depravity he does not attribute to them. He even resorts to gross obscenities.
Good reading

[beam me up scottie]

1. ~

:popcorn:

[Goblinmonger]

2. Oh, honey

Skootch over. Do you have some to share with me?

Nice to see you again, by the way.

[beam me up scottie]

4. For you? Always, baby.

It's wonderful to see you as well.

[varkam]

13. I want butter on mine!

:evilgrin:

[frebrd]

3. It's always baffled me....

why Martin Luther King, Jr's grandparents would have named their son after such a rabid anti-semite. Martin Luther was absolutely insane on the subject of "the Jews".

[struggle4progress]

5. From the Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance website: Luther and the Jews

Luther and the Jews
FRANKLIN SHERMAN

... It is ironic that Luther, in his later life, should have become known as a foe of the Jews (his major treatise on the subject was published in 1543, just three years before his death), for in his early years it was just the opposite. Jewish leaders hailed the work of Luther and the Reformation as the dawn of a new day, in which they might experience a greater freedom and justice than they had known in medieval Christendom. They noted the new interest in the study of Scripture in the original languages, and the establishment of professorships of Hebrew in the Protestant universities.

The young Luther, for his part, fully reciprocated this new sense of cordiality. This may be seen most clearly in his treatise of 1523, significantly entitled, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in which Luther stressed the Jewish origins of Christianity and, especially, the Jewishness of Jesus. An appreciation of this indebtedness, he indicated, would induce an attitude of affection and respect towards contemporary Jews. "We are aliens and in-laws," he reminded his fellow Gentiles; "they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord."

A closer examination of the text of the treatise, however, reveals the deep ambiguity of Luther's attitude towards the Jews, even in this earlier period. On the one hand, he was sharply critical of traditional prejudices, and proposed, in effect, that Christendom make a fresh start, adopting policies based on an affirmation and appreciation, not a denigration and rejection, of the Jews and their faith. On the other hand, it is plain that his eventual hope was for their conversion. Note how these two motifs intertwine as Luther wrote, in his usual colorful style: ... If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian ... If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love . . . If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians, either ...

Luther's treatise of 1543 has caused embarrassment and dismay from the first day of its publication; it is known, for example, that his closest colleague, Phillip Melanchthon, was unhappy with its severity. Fortunately, his proposals met with very little response among the authorities. In two nearby provinces, the right of safe conduct of Jews was withdrawn, and in another, Jews were prohibited from money lending and were required to listen to Christian sermons. In no cases were his harsher suggestions followed. As to the treatise itself, it did not sell widely, in contrast to the more benign treatise of 1523. For the most part, it has remained buried in obscurity, although selected quotations from it-the worst parts, of course-have been circulated by antisemitic movements ...

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=358201

<edit: typo in subject line>

[beam me up scottie]

6. A regular boy scout, wasn't he?

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

7. The scouting movement began in the early twentieth century. Luther died somewhat earlier, in 1546.

So the question, Whether Luther was ever a "regular Boy Scout", might be answerable without extensive study

[beam me up scottie]

8. Not really, they both discriminate based on religious affiliation.

What's next, an essay on how much Hitler loved puppy dogs and kittens?

[Realityhack]

9. Nice to see you BMUS. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

10. Hi R-hack!

I haven't seen you for awhile, I'm glad to see your sane and rational voice is still being heard in here.

:hug:

[moobu2]

14. From the page you quoted from (with a link)

A link to that page with some other writings. Obviously, the author believes that the roots of the anti-Semitism, which manifested itself as the Holocaust, had it’s roots firmly based in Christianity (probably can be traced to Paul).

In the earliest days of Christianity, St. John Chrysostom, frustrated by the Jews' refusal to convert, called them the most miserable of men. The great theologian, Martin Luther, encountering the same steadfastness, declared: "Their synagogues should be set on fire ... their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed ... let us drive them out of the country for all time."

<snip>

"Antisemitism" is a modern word, first coined in 1879 in connection with the contemporary pseudoscientific racial theory, but it also refers to a phenomenon with ancient roots. Stripped of modern racist overtones, Antisemitism is the heir of an anti-Judaism as old as Western Christianity. Behind the Antisemitism that played so large a role in Hitler's thinking and program lies a long and well documented history of Jew-hatred developed and nurtured by the Church.

<snip>

The Christian church, as represented by the surviving writings of its leaders, began before it was a century old to produce a systematic anti- Jewish teaching tied directly to its own theological affirmations. By the second century of the Common Era, a consistent theological rationale for disdain of Jews and contempt for Judaism had been developed and was to mark the whole course of Western civilization. As the Church became ever more politically powerful, beginning in the fourth century, theory was increasingly put into practice. Jews lost their favored status under Roman law, and a pattern of discrimination and harassment was set in motion, leading to the ghetto, physical expulsions, and pogroms. Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" marked a radical new step, but it was a step on a road prepared by the Christian church. The failure of the Church to mount any serious resistance to Hitler's program becomes more understandable, if not excusable, when the theological roots of Antisemitism are understood.

Once Martin Luther realized that his life long ambition to convert the Jews to Christianity had failed, he wrote what was 'final solution' (About the Jews and Their Lies) which the Nazi's put into action. The Holocaust, could not, and would not have occurred, without the long history of institutional anti-Semitism which is Christianity’s history. You’d have to be willfully ignorant not to see that..

[struggle4progress]

15. Anyone interested, of course, should read the entire page, which points

out, for example, that Luther's 1543 tract was not well-received and lapsed into obscurity, although "selected quotations .. have been circulated by antisemitic movements" from time to time. Thus, your gleeful repetition of selections fits an established historical pattern

A careful attempt, at reading the tract, reveals a number of inconsistencies. For example, Luther writes at one place "Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible," but elsewhere writes ".. Jews .. in the Diaspora .. were converted .. by St. Paul," which exhibits Luther citing scripture as evidence of the possibility of something he had just called impossible. Similarly, after nasty sequence on supposed Jewish snobbery, Luther turns around and attacks his readers for the same thing

This is just as though a king, a prince, a lord, or a rich, handsome, smart, pious, virtuous person among us Christians were to pray thus to God: "Lord God, see what a great king and lord I am! See how rich, smart, and pious I am! See what a handsome lad or lass I am in comparison to others! Be gracious to me, help me, and in view of all of this save me! The other people are not as deserving, because they are not so handsome, rich, smart, pious, noble, and high-born as I am." What, do you suppose, should such a prayer merit? It would merit that thunder and lightning strike down from heaven and that sulphur and hellfire strike from below

The tract as a whole thus presents exegetical difficulties. Should one assume Luther wrote with biting sarcasm, or that the debilitating and painful illnesses he suffered late in life affected his ability to think and write clearly, or that he actually did become a vicious antisemite, or that some complex combination of such factors was involved, producing a demented coupling of lucid theology, sarcasm, and antisemitism? Such difficulties explain why the tract typically sat untouched and unstudied on dusty bookshelves

If we want insight into the terrible dynamics of the Shoah, we should perhaps follow Kierkegaard's advice Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards: roughly, we should attempt to peer backwards from the wreckage of 1945. A considerable documentary history is readily available now, such as the two volume collection Nazism edited by Noakes and Pridham

It is dishonest to claim the nazis read Luther's works carefully and carried out some program found there. In fact, nazi antisemitism is not synonymous with Luther's theological antisemitism: the nazis, for example, published a "bible" which removed all references to Judaism and replaced Luther's Jewish Jesus with an "aryan"; similarly, though Luther sought conversion, the nazi-era antisemites were concerned that converts should remain identifiable as Jews, as shown by a 23 December 1932 directive from Hans Globke in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior

Guidelines for Dealing with Requests for a Change of Surname ...

Attempts .. to conceal .. Jewish descent by .. changing their Jewish names cannot .. be supported. Conversion to Christianity provides no reason for altering their names.

Later, from the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Globke authored the official commentary on the Nuremberg laws, so the 1932 memo is actually informative.

A careful and specific inquiry into the political effect of theological antisemitism in one or more particular events would (of course) be helpful: one easily finds instances where theological antisemitism prevented effective political response to atrocity. But sweeping assertions, claiming linkages over centuries, cannot produce a useful and intelligible result

[TZ]

11. But but..

I thought the nazi's were fanatical atheists who killed in the name of no religion..:sarcasm:
Wow. Historical anti-semitism fueled the hatred of the nazi's who knew....:rofl: :popcorn:

[struggle4progress]

12. The blogger's description of 'Salvation by faith' is a caricature

Luther's notion 'salvation by faith' is not accurately described by the blogger's phrase 'salvation by faith in doctrines' nor did Luther preach 'damnation of dissent and difference.' Nor does the blogger understand Luther's notion 'no salvation by works'

One is free, of course, to disagree with Luther's theological views or even to consider as being of no interest whatsoever -- but to purport a summary of those views, without first making a sustained effort to understand them, is intellectually dishonest