(March 2, 2020 at 10:47 am)Brian37 Wrote: Omg......
If I used medieval I am sorry. I merely meant at the time he lived, his motives for spreading literacy are not what his apologists claim. If you don't like my link, say that, but I did give you a source.
FYI It is a very common tactic in the world, where apologists look back in history and say, "This person contributed this", and they are not wrong. But our labels are not how change happens. Our species evolution drives us to try to make sense of life. That is not in a label, that is in our evolutionary curiosity.
Humans of every religion use past events and historical figures to say, "See my religion is correct". That argument is not a patent owned by one religion.
The point is to debunk the false argument that because Bernie argued Castro's literacy program was a good thing, in the same way. Literacy is a good thing, but it doesn't make Castro a good person.
Martin spreading the idea of literacy didn't make society think for themselves, anymore than Castro's literacy program made Cuba a free society. The world was still a far more religious superstitious place in Martin's time regardless. You cannot compare anything he did or said as being equal to our modern understanding of a open western society today.
Literacy growing in Martin's time did cause a split between churches, but it didn't get most to question religion altogether.
No, you did not give me a source, you simply changed your claim.
I’m unaware of anyone making the claim that Luther wanted to encourage freethought by enabling people to read the Bible in German. You’re tilting at a windmill that doesn’t exist.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
