Do Christians fail to understand Martin Luther was evil or do they just choose to look the other way?

"As for the demented, I hold it certain that all beings deprived of reason are thus afflicted only by the Devil."

"As to the common people, ... one has to be hard with them and see that they do their work and that under the threat of the sword and the law they comply with the observance of piety, just as you chain up wild beasts."

"I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child of this sort, which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children."

"Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads...."

"We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]."

What shall we do with...the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed."

Update:

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."

14 Answers

Relevance
  • toff
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Many Christians understand the severe shortcomings of Martin Luther. Like so many "evil" people, he did accomplish some good. Was the good enough to offset the bad he did? I guess that is for history to judge. In my opinion the bad outweighs the good by a large margin. There can be little doubt that for those of limited means in his life time he was considered a bad man.

    Note: It would seem there are answerers that are confusing Martin Luther of the Reformation with Dr. Martin Luther King of our era.

  • 4 years ago

    Why don’t you question Luther? He was just a man and he is not all correct which one can see on his followers which left him and made their own churches. This is a good reason why one should question his authority on History and teachings about the bible and faith alone. The Catholic Church has the fullness of the True and she has the key to unbind what is on earth and in heaven. God all knowing and knows the hearts of man he build a church what that man would not get lost. So that man will know his complete love to the fullness and avoid getting lost by the devil deceptions by saying to use that we are all more knowing then God and we can lead our self’s to the right paths. The Book of Romans is what Luther wanted to keep in the bible misinterpret for his own benefit and ignoring the whole New testament in matter of faith. The Holy Catholic Church always believes that we are save by grace. Not by works, look at the “Fathers of the Desert” and “The Father of the Church” which will claim that we are save by grace which the church always professed.

  • 1 decade ago

    A few points.

    1. I would like to see all the sources for the quotes. I'm kind of sick and love to do the reference work.

    2. We as Lutherans view Dr. Luther and his writing just as any other church father. There are things other church fathers have written that don't make sense, seem counter to the scriptures or I just don't agree with (I have a few problems with Augustine). We as Lutheran's do not put his writings above Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions (which are not placed above the scriptures).

    3. Dr. Luther was a product of his own time. He was certainly influenced a lot by the thought and events of his time.

    I think we will keep Dr. Luther as a church father. Remember, we are not a cult to Luther. But if that makes us less Christian, oh well.

    Can I ask a question of my own? What is your motivation for this question?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not sure of the source of your quotes nor their context.

    First, Martin Luther was a trained Catholic Theologian, and he believed in a lot of the Catholic views.

    Where he differed was on the point of absolution of sin, especially for money. He felt the Catholic church was being corrupt by taking money instead of making people do work and deeds for repentence and, yes, he eventually adopted the view that man shouldn't be doing anything that required repentance. That man should be pious.

    As for the demented. Catholics believed in demonic possession and exorcism. They believed good people could be possessed against their will. People who always had this were always possessed and thus probably couldn't be returned to good because they never really knew good.

    Out of all of this, however, came other branches of Christian religions with vastly different views. Including the Pentacostals who let themselves become possessed and speak in tongues without fear.

    Let us never forget, however, that once upon a time Medical Doctors held the view of humors, a view partially correct, but from it came bad elements. They viewed the human body as being a balance of bile or humors and when one got out of whack it had to be put into balance. A somewhat correct view, except they didn't get the treatments right.

    For example, one of the ways you balances red bile (blood) was to let blood out of the body by bleeding. Hence doctors bled patients, something we know today is totally wrong under almost any circumstances (ok, you can do it a little for snake bites or for a point of infection, but not arbitrarily).

    Are we then to condem Medical Science for being lunatics!

    For CENTURIES they practised blood letting. This was done all the way to the late 1700s and early 1800s.

    Sigmund Freud, Arthur Janov held similar views.

    Janov ("The Primal Scream") postulated repressed feelings from infancy to adult hood was the cause of neurosis and if a therapist talked a person into their most inner fears to the point where they withered and screamed (some religious people have been doing this for years, such as the Pentacostals, long before Dr. Janov) that they would become free of neurosis.

    This was "fad" in the 1970 and John Lennon went through it.

    In the 1960s an 1970s they used insulin and electro shock therapies to "fight" depression and schizo. They also took out segements of the brain.

    Today they hit you with doses of a cousin of LSD (Ritian and others) to "manage" your dementia.

    The scientific medical community is just as guilty of insane and inhuman "treatments" often done with family consent, NOT consent of the person who was being sliced into!

    Imagine if YOU were strapped to a table and your parents approved the doctor to zap you will electrical charges three times a day for two weeks and YOU had no say in the matter.

    Go talk to a "Ritian" child (who has grown up) who was given one of those pills to fight "hyperactivity" since the age of 5 and ask them what it was like to trip out on Ritian as a small child.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    No...I don't fail to understand that he was evil...or at least had some evil in him. It's called "being human." But he was probably a lot less-evil than the majority of human beings who have ever lived. (The only exception would be to find somebody who has NEVER committed a sin.)

    I sometimes wish that I could learn to be evil to the same degree as Luther, or some other Holy person.

  • 1 decade ago

    He was "catholic". What do you expect? He eventually came to his senses and made a few bold moves, but later was consumed by the power of the catholic church again. He could not defeat the church.

  • 1 decade ago

    Hm well he was human afterall.

    Nobodys perfect and were all entitled to rant every now and then.

  • 1 decade ago

    He's a real winnner...now they'll probably bring up the whole Darwin/racism thing...

  • <><><>
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Martin Luther was an okay guy.

    You're way off.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    God destroyed every person in the entire world (except 8)... is he evil?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.