[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Yes when the question did actualize until the latter half of the 20th century.

That piece denies the evidence of interracial marriages blessed by Protestants. I see that there is nowhere in Lutheranism where it says that interracial marriages are prohibited. If some prohibited and others did not, then there is no such prohibition in Lutheranism.

It looks as if you hope to attract people to your Lutheranism through sympathy, by telling lies. Well, why am I not surprised?

It would also be appropriate to note that he was talking about people already married to members of different religions. Luther naturally said that Christians are not allowed to marry non-Christians.

Since Luther also said the exact opposite in one of his diatribes against Catholicism, it is clear to anyone that Luther contradicts himself at every step.

Compare this:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic.

to this:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it.

What a fake!

In the 19th century the Catholic Church allowed interracial marriages. Most Protestant denominations forbade them.

What does this have to do with the issue of Gay marriage by the Lutheran church?

It would also be appropriate to note that people thought that she belonged to the white, European race.

Of course. Therefore it was not interracial marriage. Thank you for pointing to hipocrisy as another characteristic of your fundamental beliefs.

Do you happen to be aware of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is interpreted today?

I am aware that many things have changed since Vatican II and beyond. Including ecumenical approaches to Lutherans or the recognition of the State of Israel.

However, Traditional Catholicism is still there, unpolluted by this.

Changes in Lutheranism however, include the denial of anti-semitism through pathetic attempts to reinterpret his words. The internet is full of them and they denote a total lack of dignity.

More so when one realizes that Luther's hate to the Jews arose from his bitterness for having been rejected by them, after he remodeled Christianism into Protestantism, to accomodate the Jews. Will you ever stop crawling before their presence?

http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/11/14...SdrQluWdarLuDQ

Martin Luther - On the Jews and their lies

Which he wrote after having sucked so much on the Jews, having written his translation of the Bible where he accommodated the Jews, and seeing himself rejected and even mockered by the Jews.

To lies and hipocrisy let us now add bitterness as the tenants of his Judeo-Christianism.

In Northern European nations which were Lutheran nationalism and Lutheranism were in a symbiotic relationship. In the nations both faiths were present Lutheran Christians were more ardently nationalists than Catholics.

Now I see that you have lowered the tone of it, by changing your fallacious defamations to something more appropriated for a civilised discussion.

Even fundamentalists can learn.

In nations without Lutheran presence the faith had no influence, true.

We did not create fundamentalist theocracies, if that's what you mean.

You tolerate no irredentism in your backyard, obviously.

I support Irredentism when this is based on real ethnic grounds.

I found this interesting:
List of active autonomist and secessionist movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact I used the example of Spain when I could have used other examples. What you see there is actually the result of XIXth Romantic nationalism orchestrated by Freemasonry.

If that's what you understand by ethnic nationalism, let me recall a conversation that I had some weeks ago with one representative of these so-called "nationalist" movements, when I asked him about the ethnic problem in their "nationalist" agenda, and he answered that theirs was merely based on language. In other words, it only takes to learn (badly) the local language to be one.

Which nationalistic historic ruler did not try to assimilate national minorities?

How is that ethnic nationalism?

The German Empire was a German nation-state.

Nations and empires are different things.

A socialist distortion.

Is that a modern way to say "the satanic work of The Vatican"?