I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said that they should be slain

Nic

Well-known member
What does that have to do with Luther?

Do you believe in non-biblical Lutheran baby baptism rituals for "salvation"?
The poster you are attempting to engage in Lutheran understanding is not Lutheran, yet is more than familiar with Luther than most, so feel free. 🙂
Also to note, the poster did ask some questions of you. Perhaps if you answered, it would move the conversation along in a satisfying manner?
 
Last edited:

Tertiumquid

Active member
What does that have to do with Luther?

Do you believe in non-biblical Lutheran baby baptism rituals for "salvation"?
If you scroll up and revisit your previous comments, note that the subject "Luther" (i.e. that topic you began with), shifted to personal-sniping-typical-cyber-stupid comment stuff. I can discuss Luther or do stupid personal comment stuff. Pick one. If you pick "Luther," be prepared to not say anything personal or stupid. If you choose personal-sniping-typical-cyber-stupid comment stuff, be prepared to not discuss Luther.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Yes, Luther believed in personal interpretation of scripture as the sole authority so long as you agreed with his personal interpretation.

Surviving Anabaptist groups include the Amish and Mennonites.
Great point, would you take some time this from Luther's extant writings to substantiate it?
 

e v e

Super Member
Yes, Luther believed in personal interpretation of scripture as the sole authority so long as you agreed with his personal interpretation.

Surviving Anabaptist groups include the Amish and Mennonites.
no doubt his interpretation led by his entity.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
”Whoever rejects infant baptism…shall be punished with death,"

Serious
hatred. The Bible says nothing about baby baptism works salvation.

How do they convert people if they kill them?
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Your credibility is at zero. All of these attacks on Lutherans is divisive nonsense.
There are two popular popular fallacies that infect discussion boards like CARM:

1) Luther was sent by God, therefore, everything he said, did, or thought needs to be sanitized to keep his image un-besmirched.

2) Luther was an agent of Satan, therefore, everything he said, did, or thought needs to be exposed as evil.

Both of these positions are out of touch with common sense and meaningful historical analysis.

JS
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Tertiumquid said:
Two quick questions.

1. Did Luther actually attend the 1536 synod?

2. Are you using the word "Anabaptists" as synonymous with the word "peasants"?

Thanks.
So you have no idea what Anabaptists are.

So you will learn to try pay better attention:

1) TQ didn't make any assertion about who he understands "Anabaptists" to be, so you have basis for your uncharitable claim.

2) TQ asked you two question. You choose to ignore both of them. Why?

3) I believe the reason he asked you about your understanding of "Anabaptists" is because you seem to have pulled a "bait-and-switch" in your own OP.

The Title read: "I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, ..."
But the body read: "a synod was convened at Hamburg to devise the best means of exterminating the Anabaptists…"

I think most people who can read for comprehension can follow this.
What was your reason from changing the terminology from "peasants" to "Anabaptists"?

4) The text you quote suggests that Luther was responsible for the proclamations made at the Synod of Hamburg, but there now seems to be the possibility that Luther wasn't even present. So your selection of source material appears to be sub-standard.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So your people not prepared to discuss the serial killings?

You posted an OP. TQ responded with 8 points to discuss, relevant to your OP.
Why did you not address any of those?

Are you a troo disciple of Martin Luther?

"troo"?
If that demonstrates your level of education, may I respectfully suggest that you may be ill-matched for a discussion here? The correct spelling is, of course, "true'. I understand that English is difficult for some...

I've been familiar with TertiumQuid for many years, as have others here. He has spent a great many years studying Luther, reading primary documents (rather than biased, secondary sources as you bring up here). I can't imagine anyone who would have a better understanding of Luther's history, theology, and writings than TQ. Although if there were anyone, I'm sure TQ would know who that was.... ;)
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
There are two popular popular fallacies that infect discussion boards like CARM:

1) Luther was sent by God, therefore, everything he said, did, or thought needs to be sanitized to keep his image un-besmirched.

2) Luther was an agent of Satan, therefore, everything he said, did, or thought needs to be exposed as evil.

Both of these positions are out of touch with common sense and meaningful historical analysis.

JS

Completely agree.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Watch various churches wash their hands. "we didn't slaughter anabaptists"




God never spoke to Luther to slaughter.

I believe there is a new virus running amuck. It's called using biased sourcitis. If you go looking for trouble, you will find it. If you want a biased source, you will find it.

Just today, I've seen this happen twice.

You claim to be a Medical Doctor. Surely you know what a biased source is. Right?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I believe there is a new virus running amuck. It's called using biased sourcitis. If you go looking for trouble, you will find it. If you want a biased source, you will find it.

Just today, I've seen this happen twice.

You claim to be a Medical Doctor. Surely you know what a biased source is. Right?
Ah, you are paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln. He once said "If you go looking for the worst in people, expecting to find it, you surely will."
 
Top