‘INSULTING TO ISLAM’ Thousands of Muslims demand Nike recall ‘offensive’ Air Max trai

[Charles]

TODAY, Charles. TODAY. Ya got NOTHING from contemporary times? NOTHING AT ALL?

Interpretations, CP. Still trying to escape the point?

As has already been pointed out Christians have been killing in anti-abortion actions, Christians have misused children sexually in systematic ways, Christians are involved in KKK. You have got Christians working in nazi organisations, even a famous and celebrated Christian music producer who was a racist and was imprisoned for violent activities but was still honored as a great person when he died a few years ago: http://jontrott.com/evangelical-chri...n-david-brown/

He was a part of Aryan Nations (Church of Jesus Christ, Christian). I think Luther would agree with them with regard to the jews.

But I never made the claims there were many or as frequent attacks so if you want to make that point you are making a straw man.

Back to the point about interpretations - unless you would try to avoid it again.

[Cow Poke]

Interpretations, CP.

Rats! I did it again!

[Mountain Man]

While I would think you have a good case there are examples of other interpretations. I would say that some of what current day Evangelicals support is contrary to what the Bible teaches and you would disagree. No one disagrees that words have meanings. They disagree on what the words mean in the particular context. You cannot get your way around the level of interpretation by simply stating "words have meaning" is if Luther or anyone else would disagree.



He wrote an entire book against the jews and he was being literal. He also wrote harshly against the Turks, celebrating the killing of them in war since they were going to hell anyway (accordign to him). I am a bit surprised you did not know about this part of church history.

I'd love to see you defend your idea that Luther's apparent calls for violence are a reasonable interpretation of the Christian Bible. Perhaps start a new thread in Apologetics.

As for my not knowing the history of Luther, as I said, I'm not a Lutheran. The most I know is that he renounced the Catholic church and nailed his list of grievances to their front door.

[Cow Poke]

As for my not knowing the history of Luther, as I said, I'm not a Lutheran.

Luther was into fart jokes, or.... um...

“I am of a different mind ten times in the course of a day. But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away..."

He sounds like an interesting guy, but he's not my hero.

[One Bad Pig]

I'd love to see you defend your idea that Luther's apparent calls for violence are a reasonable interpretation of the Christian Bible. Perhaps start a new thread in Apologetics.

As for my not knowing the history of Luther, as I said, I'm not a Lutheran. The most I know is that he renounced the Catholic church and nailed his list of grievances to their front door.

I dare say that, to your interlocutor, it hardly matters if YOU think they're reasonable - only that someone, somewhen thought they were. You know he's not here to do legwork; he's just here to ask pointed questions.

[ke7ejx]

Interpretations, CP. Still trying to escape the point?

As has already been pointed out Christians have been killing in anti-abortion actions, Christians have misused children sexually in systematic ways, Christians are involved in KKK. You have got Christians working in nazi organisations, even a famous and celebrated Christian music producer who was a racist and was imprisoned for violent activities but was still honored as a great person when he died a few years ago: http://jontrott.com/evangelical-chri...n-david-brown/

He was a part of Aryan Nations (Church of Jesus Christ, Christian). I think Luther would agree with them with regard to the jews.

But I never made the claims there were many or as frequent attacks so if you want to make that point you are making a straw man.

Back to the point about interpretations - unless you would try to avoid it again.

You know, wrestling in the mud with pigs is coming to mind here. As someone who has studied Luther and happens to have been drilled on the finer points of historical analysis I can tell you that Luther's view of the Jews was in no way extraordinary. Around the same time there were inquisitions and raids all over the Holy Roman Empire where Jews were told to convert or leave. Queen Isabella of Spain was a huge player in this. And while Luther had those prejudices, he wasn't against learning from others and in a different setting might have been more of a Bonhoeffer than an Aryan had he been around for the Reich. But that doesn't quite fit your narrative, does it, Chuck?

[rogue06]

Luther was into fart jokes, or.... um...

“I am of a different mind ten times in the course of a day. But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away..."

He sounds like an interesting guy, but he's not my hero.

IIRC he claimed to have chased the devil away by throwing a lamp or something like it at him.

[rogue06]

You know, wrestling in the mud with pigs is coming to mind here.

Why bring the singular naughty swine's personal life into it?

[Roy]

Wow, Charles, you had to go back over FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to come up with your best example? Good job!!! I'm really doubting Roy was alive then, unless there's something else we need to know about him.

I doubt I was too, though Hindus, Mormons and Scientologists would disagree.

[Roy]

So, what's your real point, Roy?

The "best (worst) case" of somebody doing something hideous "in the name of Jesus (or God)" would be, what... the person who attacks an abortion clinic? Kills an abortion doctor?
If, in fact, the person who does that WAS a Christian, and was doing it in the name of Jesus (or God) - it is CLEARLY against anything we New Testament Christians are taught, and there is ZERO teaching from Jesus that we should act in that manner.
If it's demonstrable that he was not a Christian - that should be pointed out. If he WAS a Christian, it should be pointed out that he does not represent what Christianity teaches in any way, shape or form.

OTOH, somebody doing something hideous while yelling "Allahu Akbar" is very clearly doing it in the name of Allah, and there is plenty of reason he's doing it because his religion justifies it.

What am I missing?

You're missing the tendency to claim that perpetrators aren't Christians even before the perpetrator's identity is known.

[Mountain Man]

I dare say that, to your interlocutor, it hardly matters if YOU think they're reasonable - only that someone, somewhen thought they were. You know he's not here to do legwork; he's just here to ask pointed questions.

Oh, I'm well aware that he's not up to the challenge, but I reject his premise that every proposed interpretation of scripture starts on an equal footing, and it is now his burden to defend this assumption.

[Charles]

Oh, I'm well aware that he's not up to the challenge, but I reject his premise that every proposed interpretation of scripture starts on an equal footing, and it is now his burden to defend this assumption.

Since it is not an assumption I made and one i would not agree with there is no challenge. If you read what I actually wrote, you would know:

There is no part of it that I don't understand. The problem is that your idea that your idea that "their actions are contrary to scripture and the example of Jesus" is based on your interpretation of scripture. Luther would simply not agree with you on what scripture says. I know many Christians who would disagree with your interpretation of scripture. That is not to say all interpretations are equally qualified but it appears to me - based on the quote above - that you are not aware about the level of interpretation involved in your own understanding of scripture.

So you managed to avoid the point that you are yourself dependent on interpretation.

[Charles]

You know, wrestling in the mud with pigs is coming to mind here. As someone who has studied Luther and happens to have been drilled on the finer points of historical analysis I can tell you that Luther's view of the Jews was in no way extraordinary. Around the same time there were inquisitions and raids all over the Holy Roman Empire where Jews were told to convert or leave. Queen Isabella of Spain was a huge player in this. And while Luther had those prejudices, he wasn't against learning from others and in a different setting might have been more of a Bonhoeffer than an Aryan had he been around for the Reich. But that doesn't quite fit your narrative, does it, Chuck?

As someone who has studied Luther I am well aware of that his view was in no way extraordinary and that hatred and violence among Christians was common in those days. I don't think the fact that many other Christians back in those days and in later times also shared his anti semitic views makes my point weaker. Quite the opposite.

Since you studied Luther you are of course aware that his willingnes to learn from others had its limits. You are of course aware that he rejected Copernicus and claimed he wanted to turn astronomy upside down? But that doesn't quite fit your narrative, does it? https://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...opernicus.html

[Mountain Man]

Since it is not an assumption I made and one i would not agree with there is no challenge. If you read what I actually wrote, you would know:


So you managed to avoid the point that you are yourself dependent on interpretation.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "not ... all interpretations are equally qualified" since I can't parse that phrase in any way that makes sense. But it doesn't really matter because you suggest that Martin Luther was right to disagree with the traditional understanding that Jesus never called his followers to commit violence, implying that both interpretations are on an equal footing, and I'm happily tossing the ball into your court to see if you can substantiate this assumption.

[Charles]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "not ... all interpretations are equally qualified" since I can't parse that phrase in any way that makes sense. But it doesn't really matter because you suggest that Martin Luther was right to disagree with the traditional understanding that Jesus never called his followers to commit violence, implying that both interpretations are on an equal footing, and I'm happily tossing the ball into your court to see if you can substantiate this assumption.

I have not suggested that so you are - once again - making a statement that simply is not true. I have pointed out that different interpretations exist and have existed and that they differ to a large extent and that there is no way to escape interpretation. What you are saying is based on it. I have not said and do not think they are all on equal footing. Why the need for the straw man?