The Kak, as a Lutheran confirmate, I did some research on Luther's book. I stumbled across an article about the publication on "The Jewish Virtual Library." (
link to the article)An exerpt from the article says:
Quote:
A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career....We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them.
None of this justifies what follows, but it may help to comprehend what is happening. In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rejected Luther's anti-Semitic writings.
|
You said in your post:
Quote:
|
I'm not real sure I could be a fan of someone who says things like [stuff from the book]
|
That's like picking the best apple out of the tree and then not eating it because it has a bruise, or Thomas Jefferson sucks because he had slaves. Catholics wanted to exterminate all non-Catholics, Luther was just being a sore loser. Sure, he had some bad spots, but he had more good ideas.
On the topic of communion, my pastor said that the LCMS only allows members to commune because to allow a non-believer to commune would profane the sacrament.
Another reason that Lutherans are different than other Protestants is that they place a high emphasis on learning the Bible at a deeper level.