[irishjuggler]

ML thought that, after he ‘purified’ the Church, Jews would see the error of their ways and sign up en masse. When they didn’t, he threw a tantrum. He certainly had many valid points about Church corruption, and those points did ultimately lead to internal reform at the Council of Trent. At the same time, his writings show that he was not a saintly person. He definitely had a mean, vulgar streak.

[fhayek]

What kind of meat did Martin Luther eat on Friday?

Nun.

[niteowl77]

He definitely had a mean, vulgar streak.

Luther was similar in that to his antithesis - Albrecht of Mainz - but without the latter's misogyny. The Germans of those days were way past "earthy."

[katana]

Mohammed supposedly had similar expectations of being accepted by Jews as a prophet. When that didn't happen he didn't write a book. He murdered and enslaved whole Jewish communities that had existed on the Arabian Peninsula for centuries. Later on his followers went to the simple expedient of reclassifying the actual prophets as a) descendants of Ishmael instead of Isaac, and b) Muslims ... a couple thousand plus years before that word existed.

That Luther was as flawed as anyone, and a reflection of his times, does not negate all his teachings. Nor that the western church had become hugely corrupt and rich and deeply in need of reform and a return to first principles. It was and is, after all, made up and run by sinful humans, a fact that applies as much to Protestants as Roman Catholics. We all strive imperfectly.

[Mr Rogers]

“At the same time, his writings show that he was not a saintly person. He definitely had a mean, vulgar streak.”

Most people of the time did. The writings of Sir Thomas More (A Man for All Seasons) concerning William Tyndale are filled with bitterness and hatred.