>whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you.
What did he mean by that?
I'm not sure about this particular quote, but there was a reformed peasant revolt in Germany led by Thomas Müntzer and Luther himself was so horrified about it he condemned them.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that the cancerous ideologies started by the French revolution (socialism, nationalism, egalitarianism, marxism etc) actually have their root in people like Wycliffe, Hus, Luther or Müntzer, protestants that is.
>>349206
This
>Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.
>Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check
It wasn't for nothing that he was immensely popular with German barons
>>349262
Jesus Christ
Literally
"Fuck Rome. Fuck peasants too."
>>349245
Capitalism as well.
Egalitarianism started way earlier, in ancient Greece. It even got so far once that Euphron of Thebes freed all the slaves and gave them citizenship and land.
>>349245
>egalitarianism
Wasn't that always a Christian thing?
What is wrong with Germans?
Luther was anti-intellectual as fuck. Why did everyone love this guy again?
>>349302
He was very progressive.
>Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business.
>But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.
>Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.
>I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.
>Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.
>>349286
>capitalism
I think some sort of proto-capitalism can be traced down to merchant republics of Italy and then the northwestern European Atlantic coast, along with banking and shit like that. It transformed into mercantilism and then to capitalism during the industrial revolution.
>>349350
Didn't exist as an ideology, though. People practiced socialism long before there was a socialist ideology as well.
>>349358
Maybe capitalism didn't exist as a coherent intellectual system, but the idea of property rights and the free circulation of commodities can be traced to many liberal thinkers at the time.
>>349282
"fuck jews additionally"
>>349364
Property rights existed as a concept since ancient times, as well as relatively unrestrained circulation. Capitalism is mainly defined by the prominence of the credit system, as well as the market performing functions that were formerly handled by the community and family.
>>349206
>Christians
>moral
>>349309
>defending extra-marital sex
based
>>349387
>What makes you say that?
Because Marx popularized the term and that's how he defined it. Well, that and the prominence of wage labor, but I think that part is just based on the progress meme.
>Market and community aren't mutually exclusive. Especially not in premodern society.
I suggest you read The Great Transformation.
>>349309
>But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.
>Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.
>>349443
There is literally nothing wrong with being a kek
>>349443
>Lutherans actually follow this man
>>349475
Lutherans follow Jesus Christ. Luther was just a dude formulating some theological principles, he's not infallible like le papa in Rome.
>>349404
When did criticising something by calling it "le progress meme" or suggesting someone read a specific book, rather than communicating your understanding of the arguments contained within it from you reading it,become a solid argument anywhere except /pol/?
I'm not even a Marxist or the anon you replied to but this seems like a very weak post.
>>349475
>Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.
>It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.
>If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies
>One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them
>It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.
>Reason is the Devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.
>>349482
Marx thought of the dominance wage labor as some inevitable economic progress that arose through dialectic. Which I find a bit ridiculous.
I suggest he read the book to understand that community economics were mostly *not* a market. They were gift economic, redistribution, and household production. There was a market, but it was the far smaller part of the economy.
>Martin Luther also took note of the similarities between Islam and Protestantism in the rejection of idols, although he noted Islam was much more drastic in its complete rejection of images. In On War against the Turk, Luther is actually less critical of the Turks than he is of the Pope, whom he calls an anti-Christ, or the Jews, whom he describes as "the Devil incarnate".[16] He urges his contemporaries to also see the good aspects in the Turks, and refers to some who were favourable to the Ottoman Empire, and "who actually want the Turk to come and rule, because they think that our German people are wild and uncivilized - indeed that they are half-devil and half-man".[17]
>Martin Luther's ambivalence also appears in one of his other comments, in which he said that "A smart Turk makes a better ruler than a dumb Christian".[15]
>The Ottomans also felt closer to the Protestants than to the Catholics. At one point, a letter was sent from Suleiman the Magnificent to the "Lutherans" in Flanders, claiming that he felt close to them, "since they did not worship idols, believed in one God and fought against the Pope and Emperor".[18][19]
>Overall, the military activism of the Ottoman Empire on the southern European front probably was the reason why Lutheranism was able to survive in spite of the opposition of Charles V and reach recognition at the Peace of Augsburg in September 1555:[15] "the consolidation, expansion and legitimization of Lutheranism in Germany by 1555 should be attributed to Ottoman imperialism more than to any other single factor".[27]
>Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]
>"If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times". [6] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon".[7]
>>349482
>the concept of History metaphysically driving progress eternally and in quantifiable stages
>not a meme
>>349297
Ahahaha.
On paper, yes. In reality, no.
>>349601
>>349297
Actually not even on paper.
The Bible teaches about being equal when it comes to salvation, that much is true, but when it comes to worldly matters it was still very much hierarchical. I mean Jesus is called the "king of kings" and Paul specifically talks about submitting yourself to traditional earthly authorities, that's as monarchist as it gets.
>>349601
"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."
>>349626
Right, Jesus submitted himself to the traditional earthly authorities, but not because they were better than he was in any naturalist sense
Was Martin just b8ing?
>>349689
His advice was highly esteemed and in this case followed, so I don't think so.
