Happy 500th Birthday to the Protestant Reformation!

[SLD]

Without the Protestant reformation there'd be no 30 years war. Without the 30 years war there'd be no concept of the nation state. There'd be no Hugo Grotius concept of international law. Without the concept of the nation state there'd be no USA. Without the thirty years war there'd be no real enlightenment, and the very concept of religious tolerance propounded by John Locke. Without the enlightenment and the concept of at least religious tolerance (and later complete separation of Church and state) we would not have created the US as we did. We would still be religiously required to conform upon pain of death. So say what you will about Martin Luther, without his posting those 95 theses, we wouldn't be free today to be atheists.

SLD

 

[sharon45]

I was already free to not like the Christian god while I was in church as a child, I just wasn't allowed to tell that to others in my family. Even by today's standards, it isn't nearly enough better. People still have a rotten view of atheists.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If I happened to be Jewish, I'd have a ton to say about Martin Luther.

 

[J842P]

I'm skeptical of some of your deducements. But, I suppose, we can be "thankful" for the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther in the same sense as we can be "thankful" for the Salafists, and that eventually, so many Muslim's will kill each other for so long that they'll have to learn to get along...

 

[blastula]

I'm skeptical of some of your deducements. But, I suppose, we can be "thankful" for the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther in the same sense as we can be "thankful" for the Salafists, and that eventually, so many Muslim's will kill each other for so long that they'll have to learn to get along...

I was just reading something along those lines.

An Islamic "Reformation"? - Pseudo History meets Politics - History for Atheists

 

[J842P]

I'm skeptical of some of your deducements. But, I suppose, we can be "thankful" for the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther in the same sense as we can be "thankful" for the Salafists, and that eventually, so many Muslim's will kill each other for so long that they'll have to learn to get along...

I was just reading something along those lines.

An Islamic "Reformation"? - Pseudo History meets Politics - History for Atheists

I totally agree that calls for a "Reformation" show a complete lack of understanding of what the Reformation was. It wasn't a rejection of literalist, fundamentalist Christianity in favor of enlightenment values, it was the rejection of a secularized Catholicism *in favor* of a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. It is exactly the *opposite* of what secular people would want. Typically, for the historically minded, you can replace "Reformation" with "Enlightenment", although, that goes to show the extent to which the Anglo-sphere is influenced by Protestant Christianity to be anti-Catholic.


Indeed, I think the OP suffers from a lot of implicit "Whiggish historical positivism".

 

[lpetrich]

Five hundred years ago, on October 31, 1517, a monk and professor of theology named Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) mailed a copy of his 95 theses to Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz. He may also have nailed a copy of them on the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, but we are not sure about that.

 Ninety-five Theses, Martin Luther 95 Theses: Full Text (each one is only a sentence), The 95 Theses: A Summary

He objected to indulgences as buying one's way into Heaven, and he objected to where the money was going: out of Germany, for rebuilding St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

His theses circulated widely, but the Catholic Church decided that they were heretical, and a few years later, the Church put him on trial at an assembly in a town called Worms -- the Diet of Worms. He refused to back down, and the Church excommunicated him. But some leaders befriended him and supported him, as he established a new church, translated the Bible, composed hymns, wrote about various theological issues, and got married to an ex-nun.

He hoped that his new improved version of Christianity would make Jews want to convert, but when they failed to do so, he turned against them. He wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies" (1543), advocating that Jews be either expelled or turned into slave laborers. Some 400 years later, many Nazis loved what he said about Jews and what to do about them.

He was followed by several other reformers, like John Calvin, and some of them also established their own churches. The Catholic Church did not like these new churches, and the result was some 150 years of bloody Wars of Religion. These wars ended in a draw, with much of northern Europe Protestant and the rest Catholic.

Martin Luther succeeded where most of his predecessors had failed. A century earlier, reformer Jan Hus (John Huss) had some success in Czechia, but the Church caught up with him and burned him at the stake. Even earlier, the Church successfully suppressed the Albigensians of southern France, and before that, the Bogomils of Bulgaria. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, was too big and distant for the Catholic Church to suppress, however.


Although his immediate legacy was those Wars of Religion, his further legacy was the weakening of the Catholic Church and the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought more generally. Catholics and Protestants discovered that they could coexist, despite considering each other idolators and heretics.

 

[bilby]

Five hundred years ago, on October 31, 1517, a monk and professor of theology named Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) mailed a copy of his 95 theses to Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz. He may also have nailed a copy of them on the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, but we are not sure about that.

 Ninety-five Theses, Martin Luther 95 Theses: Full Text (each one is only a sentence), The 95 Theses: A Summary

He objected to indulgences as buying one's way into Heaven, and he objected to where the money was going: out of Germany, for rebuilding St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

His theses circulated widely, but the Catholic Church decided that they were heretical, and a few years later, the Church put him on trial at an assembly in a town called Worms -- the Diet of Worms. He refused to back down, and the Church excommunicated him. But some leaders befriended him and supported him, as he established a new church, translated the Bible, composed hymns, wrote about various theological issues, and got married to an ex-nun.

He hoped that his new improved version of Christianity would make Jews want to convert, but when they failed to do so, he turned against them. He wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies" (1543), advocating that Jews be either expelled or turned into slave laborers. Some 400 years later, many Nazis loved what he said about Jews and what to do about them.

He was followed by several other reformers, like John Calvin, and some of them also established their own churches. The Catholic Church did not like these new churches, and the result was some 150 years of bloody Wars of Religion. These wars ended in a draw, with much of northern Europe Protestant and the rest Catholic.

Martin Luther succeeded where most of his predecessors had failed. A century earlier, reformer Jan Hus (John Huss) had some success in Czechia, but the Church caught up with him and burned him at the stake. Even earlier, the Church successfully suppressed the Albigensians of southern France, and before that, the Bogomils of Bulgaria. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, was too big and distant for the Catholic Church to suppress, however.


Although his immediate legacy was those Wars of Religion, his further legacy was the weakening of the Catholic Church and the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought more generally. Catholics and Protestants discovered that they could coexist, despite considering each other idolators and heretics.

I am not sure about that last sentence. Perhaps someone should tell the Catholics and the Protestants about this extraordinary discovery?

 

[lpetrich]

... Although his immediate legacy was those Wars of Religion, his further legacy was the weakening of the Catholic Church and the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought more generally. Catholics and Protestants discovered that they could coexist, despite considering each other idolators and heretics.

I am not sure about that last sentence. Perhaps someone should tell the Catholics and the Protestants about this extraordinary discovery?

Why do you think that that is not the case?

 

[Tigers!]

I am not sure about that last sentence. Perhaps someone should tell the Catholics and the Protestants about this extraordinary discovery?

I am a Baptist married to a Catholic. Will be 22 years in 3 weeks. So far so good.

 

[J842P]

I am not sure about that last sentence. Perhaps someone should tell the Catholics and the Protestants about this extraordinary discovery?

Why do you think that that is not the case?

Question: did you read the link blastula posted earlier? Because I think your concluding sentence is a perfect example of the "Whiggish historical positivism" that was addressed. In particular:

Although his immediate legacy was those Wars of Religion, his further legacy was the weakening of the Catholic Church and the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought more generally.

How is the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought a legacy of Luther? Luther was virulently anti-Semetic, not to mention he was fully in support of the persecution of the Anabaptists by the sword, and others that he deemed heretics. He was also famously anti-reason. Luther's Protestantism was the Salafism - a *reform* branch of Islam - of Christianity. It did not represent "freedom of thought more generally."

Unless you are saying that the eventual result of the tumult and upheaval, after several centuries of terrible bloodshed, that the Europeans finally decided that maybe burning people alive and mass killings was not good, and religious tolerance might be a good idea. But to me, that's like saying that the relative post-war peace in Europe is part of Hitler's legacy.

 

[SLD]

Why do you think that that is not the case?

Question: did you read the link blastula posted earlier? Because I think your concluding sentence is a perfect example of the "Whiggish historical positivism" that was addressed. In particular:

Although his immediate legacy was those Wars of Religion, his further legacy was the weakening of the Catholic Church and the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought more generally.

How is the growth of religious tolerance and freedom of thought a legacy of Luther? Luther was virulently anti-Semetic, not to mention he was fully in support of the persecution of the Anabaptists by the sword, and others that he deemed heretics. He was also famously anti-reason. Luther's Protestantism was the Salafism - a *reform* branch of Islam - of Christianity. It did not represent "freedom of thought more generally."

Unless you are saying that the eventual result of the tumult and upheaval, after several centuries of terrible bloodshed, that the Europeans finally decided that maybe burning people alive and mass killings was not good, and religious tolerance might be a good idea. But to me, that's like saying that the relative post-war peace in Europe is part of Hitler's legacy.

It's your last point. Luther was an asshole. But the end result was a very different western political viewpoint. His movement morphed ultimately into the notion of religious freedom that he would not have originally approved.

SLD

 

[Sarpedon]

By weakening religion, the environment for such changes was created, contrary to Luther's goals. Not only did Luther weaken the Catholic Church, the churches he created ended up being weaker than the ones they replaced. He also introduced the idea that religion is a choice, merely by creating alternatives. The concept that the Sovereign of the country chose the religion is the predecessor of the idea that religion is a personal choice. Luther introduced that idea in order to tempt kings to embrace protestantism.

 

[SLD]

By weakening religion, the environment for such changes was created, contrary to Luther's goals. Not only did Luther weaken the Catholic Church, the churches he created ended up being weaker than the ones they replaced. He also introduced the idea that religion is a choice, merely by creating alternatives. The concept that the Sovereign of the country chose the religion is the predecessor of the idea that religion is a personal choice. Luther introduced that idea in order to tempt kings to embrace protestantism.

Very true. The reformation got away from his original intent. Unlike Hitler though he was successful in establishing it. I think it's unfair to make the comparison to Hitler's legacy because Hitler was an abject failure and it was his defeat that created the modern European state. Whereas with Luther his success is what got the ball rolling towards the concept of religious freedom even if that wasn't his original intent.

SLD

 

[LordKiran]

I'd argue that the catholic church is what weakened religion in the west. Whether it was their constantly vying for power over kingdoms outside of the papal state, or their obvious hypocrisy and decadence some kind of powderkeg incident was inevitable. If it wasn't Martin Luther, then it would have just as easily been someone else.

It's important to remember that Mr. Luther was not the first of his kind, with plenty of religious movements that came long before him, such as the Cathars and Hussites. So why did Martin succeed where they failed? The answer is that he appealed to the aristocracy rather than to the common man, in a time when northern German princes (The Teutons in particular) were strapped for cash and just looking for a reason to dissolve the monasteries.

 

[repoman]

Why haven't the Jews been able to make Lutheran churches rebrand and drop Luther?