This post is going to be shorter than I’d like since I had another article come my way on lagrandil.com about sex and marriage in the 1960’s.
A venomous person wandered into the garden of The Lutheran Satire and started spewing bile everywhere. Some of it got on me.
Well… We know how well that usually goes, don’t we?
Like a genuine troll, the person who showed up in the comments has no personal information available, and I’m pretty sure he is not even using his real name, so I will not dignify him with citation. Pity that trolls tend to be cowards.
Me: Here’s a quick overview of fake “Christians stole stuff” mythologies nicely debunked, for those of you who want to dig into some history. The Lutheran Satire continues to teach and mock in equal delightful measure.
5 months later: A troll appears:
Troll: Gotta love Lutheran satire..”Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.” Martin Luther – The Jews & Their Lies
If you understand German culture and the religious schools where this book were taught, maybe you would understand why Hitler did what he did. Martin Luther wanted the holocaust and his teaches were taught as such.
Yes… indeed Martin Luther has this sinful fault. It would be more of a problem if I worshiped Luther, but I merely follow most of his teachings, including the example to compare things with scripture and plain reason. He’s plainly wrong there. I do, however, know enough history to understand the context. When Luther did the whole Reformation thing, he had really high hopes that the Jews who had rejected Christianity would see the Gospel in a better light and convert en masse. Didn’t happen, and Martin Luther got pretty bitter about it. He lapsed right on over into sin.
The rest was my first bout of the giggles from Mr. Troll. I understand that the Nazis (atheist, evolutionist, statists) had a job of work on their hands to get their radical evil swallowed worldwide. Much of their conquered territory was Lutheran, so taking a lamentable sin out of context and presenting it as mainstream teaching by someone who (by all his other standards would have ordered the Nazi’s dead many times over) had the respect of the populations that they wanted to convince.
Say it with me, dude: Text without context is a pretext for a proof text.
Then there is the problem of the total lack of logic involved. It would have been impossible for Martin Luther to even imagine something like the Holocaust, because the technology and scale were completely unknown to him. Secondly, read Luther. He is a bombast. His prose is full of great blasting exaggerations and dramatic points. Whenever someone takes a great big Luther quote, in which you can almost hear him shouting, and treat is as if he were discussing foreign policy over chess, I can tell that the person has not actually read Lutheran works in their entirety. The dude is long-winded and opinionated, and frequently when something really controversial comes out of his mouth there is something mitigating two or three pages later.
Of course, that means doing what a literary critic is trained to do: Read entire texts in context of their writing.
The idea that Luther caused the Holocaust is as funny as the idea that Da Vinci firebombed Dresden because he doodled war machines and flying machines. He must also have gone back in time to cause the expulsion and mass slaughter of Jews in England in 1262-1290. On his way back in time on St. Paul’s Tardis (we’ll get to that, faithful reader) he must have stopped in on Black Death a hundred and eighty years before he was born to cause the slaughter of Jews in 1348-49 that swept through Europe.
Or… wait… could it be… possibly… that European Catholicism was ANTISEMITIC BEFORE LUTHER?! I mean… that would be like having multiple little holocausts, Russian Pogroms, the Peasant’s Crusade that terrorized Jews and committed great atrocities four hundred years before Luther?!
So which is more probable, troll boy, that Luther fell into sin and touched on a continent-wide pattern of error and sinfulness, or that he single-handedly spawned the Holocaust? Seriously, man. None of this is hard if you take time to check your facts.
Also, instead of the debunked horus/jesus argument.. so therefore god! Maybe try reading Bart Ehrman or Richard Carrier. There is some really good stuff there. Like how we know some parts of the bible are known forgeries like the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. Or how Mt 3:7–10 and Lk 3:7–9 are word for word the same so someone did some copying. etc etc, the list goes on..
So on top of missing cause and effect, you do not understand how the Canon was formed. Editing is not forgery any more than your use of spell-check in a word processor is forgery. If a story was added later, that does not make the story untrue. It makes it a later edition. When George Lucas added the Han & Jabba scene to his re-release of Star Wars, was that a forgery? Nope!
I am an author. My own novel Shifting Gears, had an entirely different ending when first written. After a month or so I figured out a way to explain things better, and wrote it down. CLEARLY someone forged the second text. Or it could be called a revision or a second edition, to sneak up on you with technical terms.
The Gospels are historical compilations that openly state that they do not tell everything that could be told. For one thing, a piece of paper cost two days’ wages back then, so you only wrote down what you had to. I have no problem with the stories added later. It does not mean that they are or are not a forgery. That would have to be its own investigation into the facts. It could be as simple as John deciding to add something he had forgotten, or one of John’s disciples including something he often spoke about seeing but did not place into the manuscript. Revision does not indicate untruth or forgery, folks.
In fact, most of the time, revisions are CORRECTIONS. That means that the second edition is more likely to be accurate and complete than the first. Oops.
Uhm… The quote from the Smalcald Articles in the first is the only accurate thing you stated. And when Luther said that, he was wrong.
But you are using a Binary system, that someone is either wrong or right. Since the rest of your statements are demonstrably false, your first statement is also false.;..Or perhaps, just maybe life is a little more complicated than your broad smears.
And you’d be surprised who I have read. I started off as a pre-seminary major in a college that believed the same easily-disproven “higher-criticism” school of thought that gained in popularity.
Unlike the professors who embraced it, I actually read both sides of the debate about Biblical accuracy (Per Anderson, head of religion at +Concordia College had never even heard of the most famous apologist of the era. That shows how well-informed he was about the broader state of scholarship outside his little Bible-hating circle.
But for the sake of argument, how about I give you a chance to demonstrate causality between Luther and Hitler beyond a single quote.
I wait with baited breath.
Troll: There is more than just a single quote showing a correlation. 😉 Google em up bro. Many other quotes can be found to show his anti-semitism and many links and writings in Nazi propoganda, speeches from Hitler, and in the mein kampf[sic]… The Luther and Hitler correlations are frequent enough to point to many documented causation.
RIGHT. Google search says it, therefore it must be true. I quote Peter Kreeft often in philosophical debate. Therefore he is the source of my conversion and responsible for my actions. But wait… I quote him because he agrees with what I already believe, or explains it better than I could. I was a Christian for decades before I ever heard of him. Quoting someone, or even having a lot of quotes in common, does not imply endorsement or relationship. Do you have any idea how often Rush Limbaugh quotes Barak Obama? I’m sure they’re bestest buds.
You stand on an argument from authority and even admit a bias from a school that already has a given viewpoint, that’s not a very good argument from a well rounded view of religions. 😉 Also not sure how you could read both sides, when many new works are coming out yearly… or new finds or other research… apparently you have already made up your mind.. #cringe
Now we know someone has never been to a college for very long. A college has a bias?! EVERYONE has a bias, or beliefs. Debate is about changing them, and understanding people’s words depends heavily upon understanding them. For example, I wasn’t citing authority. I stated that I was educated in an environment where every fact presented was against what I currently believe. I was on the fence on a few things, and their evidence was so poor it drove me to opposite conclusions. Speaking of bias, the trolls pants are about to fall down about his ankles and things are about to get really fun.
I believe it to all be a farce. And I personally feel that the epistles are garbage. Made up trash, probably written by Paul, who was born at least a hundred years after Jesus, and who had never known Jesus, he was a mass murderer, and I find it ironic that his writings in Corinthians and other books have any authority. Paul is a charlatan who hated the Jews.
But I can’t listen to what you’re saying, troll. You have a bias, a belief that you held beforehand! Oops! It isn’t supposed to work the same way for you as your opponents, is it?
The rest of this is sheer awesome. The dude says that Paul was born at least a hundred years after Jesus, then accuses him of guilt for the mass-murder of Christians immediately following Jesus ascension. So in the troll’s mind Paul was born, grew up, then traveled back in time, established a new identity with his slightly-psychic paper, got accepted into the highest standards of scholastic education in the region (something a non-Jewish imposter could never pull off), and then organizes a purge of Christianity at least a hundred years after he was born. Then he went back to his original time and forged a bunch of epistles because he hated the Jews so much.
Really?! Luke and Acts were written by one of Paul’s companions, who had access to eyewitness accounts in Jerusalem. Therefore both Luke and Acts had to have been assembled before the fall of Jerusalem. Peter speaks of Paul and his writings, and Peter seems to have been the same age or slightly older than Jesus.
Luke’s word-for-word account to an eyewitness account (Mark is John-Mark, Peter’s translator and companion in his later life), does not need to be plagiarism. In point of fact, if you hear your friend or someone you respect recount an event the same way for any period of time, it makes total sense to use his wording when you are citing his testimony. In non-Jesus-hating terms, when religion isn’t on the line, we call this devious, dastardly technique by it’s insidious given name: an interview.
Beyond that, anthropology indicates that in oral-tradition cultures, which Israel was surrounded by and uniquely literate among, the standard for recounting a story was about 80% identification. That means that 20% of the tale, maximum, could be re-arranged or spoken about in a different way before the audience started to call bullshit on the storyteller. And interestingly enough, it was socially acceptable and expected that they would do so. This mechanism explains some sub-Saharan African lore that has endured so long without changing that historians have a hard time dissecting the history of it, because it is like trying to palm-read a block of granite.
The Jew-hating comments about Paul are just sweet icing on the cake. Paul, who was a Jew, a Pharisee, and an adjunct to the Sanhedrin, student of Gamaliel a famous Jewish scholar. You can read Gamliel’s teachings in the Talmud! So modern Jews are still studying the teachings of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. And Paul’s anti-Semitism runs so deep that he places them first, most honored as recipients of God’s law and spends chapters dealing with the conflict in Romans. He expresses his love and desire for them and their salvation, he says they are more naturally able to be grafted back in than we, the unnatural branches who believe in Christ outside of Judaism. He gets pretty pissed when people try to make Gentile Christians live under the Law instead of the Gospel, but that is a hatred of principle not of people.
If you ever understood the actions around Rome in 66CE or read other works from other scholars the divinity of christ [sic] being not clear, and the dead sea scrolls certainly show another viewpoint that was not destroyed by the controlling christian sects that labeled them as heretics.
I’ve spent an entire semester and written at least five papers on the writings of Paul Tillich, and also the members of the Jesus Seminar. My college hosted the Jesus Seminar the summer of my freshman year. The scholarship was so pathetic it started my departure from the ELCA. I have actually danced around a fire in which burned my collection of the works of John Dominic Crossan, and I had read every page for college credit. Do you want to start with his theory that his study of a 16th century Italian village could give insight into Jesus’ Nazareth since all Mediterranean cultures are the same?! That’s what passes for “scholarship” among the “educated” among the “historical Jesus” crowd. Sorry, couldn’t buy into that. Nope. The problem was, my brain was functioning.
Hebrew, Western history, European history… all of it I learned and studied at the hands of secular teachers. All of it still points me to the divinity of Christ. I’ve read Marx, Stalin, Hulme, and even that German syphilitic philosopher so popular these days, though it is hard to take seriously the words of someone with a brain-rotting disease. (That was a joke about Nietzche, by the way.)
Sad to see that you missed many of my points on how the stories are just copied from much older religions etc.. but hey if you can find people that help validate your claims maybe thats why you like the weird (and wrong) assertions supported in this video (as I said in my first comment).
You had points… plural?!?! I thought you just said it once.
This is the problem, gentle readers. I fail often to understand that the viewpoints of my opponents are so strong that they do not need evidence.
Shall we look at the evidence?
The Exodus dates itself to 1440 BC. Within 100 years the Pharoah Akhenaten ditched polytheism to worship one god. Which religion is copying which one? That makes way more sense if a single deity kicked Egyptian butt in living memory (grandfather’s time generally speaking) than otherwise.
In 720 BC the northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed and its sometimes-monotheist people deported throughout the Middle East. SUDDENLY, a boy born in 660 BC in that region comes up with the religion of God and Satan duking it out, I mean Ahriman and Uhura Mazda, totally not rip-offs. It has semi-monotheism, it has similar morals, and it has temple-oriented worship around an eternal flame… I guess Zoroaster went back in time at least sixty years before his birth and converted the Jews to monotheism in a single day before their nation was wiped out. I had no IDEA there were so many Time Lords in history.
Wait… maybe they’re ALL The Doctor!
Oh my… Jews were scattered through the world for the first time in 720 BC… and on the far end of the trade routes a new religion with similarities to Jewish thought and Indian religions starts a new faith between 560 and 400 BC. Even if they walked REALLY slowly that was enough time for Jewish slaves or traders to get there.
That’s not even going into the mystery religions that shot up all over the Mediterranean fifty to a hundred years after Christ with strangely Christian imagery.
Sure, I believe the historical record indicates a whole lot of copying took place.
But if you REALLY have to believe that religions made up or stole from another source, the sources do not point to your conclusion but to mine.
I could go on but really you handed me one of my favorite historical games of Whack-a-Mole and I couldn’t resist.
But points for effort, troll boy! I love soft-pitch softball.
Maybe one day you could give up magic and fairy tales and realize religion is just a tool to control populations. Just saying. It works well.
I gave up magic at the age of 28, thanks. I am still not convinced that fairies do or do not exist as a little sub-division of angelhood. They either do and are split up among the God/Devil split of the supernatural things, or they do not and fairy stuff is just demons playing dress-up.
In all seriousness, perhaps, and I do hope, some day you will hear that God loves you very much, even though you hate him. While we still hated him and were his enemies he sent his only son to die for our treason, so that we didn’t have to pay the penalty for our selfishness, hatred, and rebellion. We didn’t earn it and we can’t deserve it, but it is there, freely available. I would much rather talk to you about saving your soul and living forever than squish your ideas in public. Both are good, but you are worth much, much more than a fun debate.
Troll: Don’t you find it the slightest bit concernign [sic] that the lutheran [sic] church or at least the ELCA.. has a hierarchy to avoid controversial issues? They then leave certain dogmatic points up to the churches… it keeps their hands clean from getting certain churches upset.. like gay marriage… no national standard setting, it might break up the denomination! Maybe all this BS is why we have 38,000 christian denominations globally, they can’t agree on anything.
I just say its all a farce and we are better off without any of it.
The ELCA is not a Christian church. There ARE Christians inside of it. There are ELCA pastors and whole congregations who are part of it. But it is not, as an institution part of the body of Christ. There are a couple lines you cannot cross that they do.
- Jesus is Christ, the Son of God and Lord, not a fairy tale, social consciousness teacher, or whatever else.
- You cannot deliberately keep on sinning and be in Christ, and they have several sets of deliberate ongoing sins going on. My particular favorite was that on they day they said that practicing homosexuals could be clergy a wind tore the cross off the church they voted in, turned it upside down and threw it through the front doors of the church. I know people who were in attendance. They didn’t take that hint either, just as it is said that if we do not listen to God’s Word even an angel or someone coming back from the dead cannot convince us..
Now the ELCA is a business trying to stay alive. They lost 10% of their membership in one year in 1993 when they put their first pro-gay pamphlet out, and have been bleeding churches ever since. It makes sense that they try to cover it up, but it is not my problem. I am a LCMS/WELS Christian depending on church availability, not an ELCA one.
And yes, there are denominations. HOW DARE we sinful human beings try to follow Jesus? How dare we take it seriously enough to split over differences that we cannot reconcile? If Christianity were a man-made religion, designed by mortal minds, it would make more sense that we could all agree on it. If it were divine, beyond us, and our imperfect nature unable to perfectly follow or understand without help, then denominations would seem to be the logical result.
(OF course, one denomination gets it right… *wink*.)
Our Hero: Um. Wow.
You need to stop bottling up all that repressed hate or you’re going to get a complex or something.Seriously, let it out. You’re among friends.First off, thank you for starting my day off with a fit of the giggles. These were priceless.Secondly, I’m changing formats to fisk elsewhere.Dude, please write more. This is awesome. Every time I hear quotes like yours I tend to think that they can’t possibly come from real people, that people on the Christian side are making straw men.
But you’re like… REAL. *poke* See?! This is great. I haven’t been handed straight lines like this in months.
Sweet. Uh… I gotta go blog now.
In all seriousness, I would like it very much if Mr. Troll and all like him came to be saved. But the odds are not stacked in his favor.
Fortunately we have folks like The Lutheran Satire and others working hard to get as many people in as possible.