But how do his teachings compare to others of the time, especially the Catholic Church? If you try to apply 21st Century morality to 16th Century ideas, you are bound to find ideas to consider “unconscionable.” People at large did some absolutely fucked up shit in the past, but in their times much of what they did was a societal norm
LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Other people also having fucked up opinions at the time also don’t justify the truly fucked up opinions and teachings of one specific person.
protist@mander.xyz 11 months ago
My point is that the act of trying to justify or judge the actions of a someone from 5 centuries ago is doomed to failure. The social norms and cultural context of the time absolutely matter when you’re reviewing history
LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Sorry, but that’s horseshit. Teaching something like this:
is an objectively reprehensible stance regardless of the cultural context. The rejection of morality, conscience, and Christian teaching by an ordained priest is absolutely worthy of judgment, and the fact that he lived 500 years ago doesn’t change that a bit.
protist@mander.xyz 11 months ago
Ok, so you think Martin Luther was a piece of shit. So now what? Are you saying the impact he had on western civilization should be ignored? Do you want to erase him from history? What are you trying to accomplish?
howsetheraven@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s reprehensible now, and with the information we have on hand. If his entire worldview was shaped around hating jews, which wasn’t uncommon among gentiles, then that statement is understandable coming from him.
You need to separate yourself from being a 21st century, moral (at least in this case, I don’t know you), and critically thinking human being that can look in hindsight with centuries of lessons learned.