I ought to have made it clear that I was approaching the topic from the standpoint of mental illness. It seems I did not. It seems to me that Luther's relationship with God, the devil, the Jews, the Turks, etc., is a metaphor for his relationship with his Father.
I was willing to consider the proposition that he was mentally ill, but have changed my mind. Using his intellectual tool set, considered by many as an acceptable method in that era, he produced an entirely a reasonable explanation for his world using this toolbox. While he was educated for Northern Europe, the sophistication of Italy was still years away and Galileo was not dead yet. Scientific inquiry was not a standard approach.
I agree that the principles that he held are extreme compared to now, but that the primary problem he faced seems to be saying something unpopular with the church and saying it so publicly. I doubt he would have been deemed to be insane in a court of law at the time for a belief held by so many (e.g., a belief in devils or specific hatreds of ethnic groups).
It is impossible for us to evaluate the mental health of people across time - without a context, human behavior is impossible to evaluate. It is certainly questionable to assess the intricacies of a father-son relationship in the context of this belief system.
In a time of general belief of odd things (like the ones held by 15th and 16th century clerics), it is hard to attribute a specific psychiatric condition (like one of delusion) to someone whose belief systems are not that far outside the social norm.
When people say "Alexander the Great was gay." I think, "Gee, in an early 21st century way, or in a 320 BC sort of way? How did that culture express its sexuality?" Could be quite a range including such "perversions" as homosexuality, sodomy, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia and gang rape. Cultures have done some really weird things when it comes to sex and religion... |
