Originally posted by TerrierJackIt is precisely because I have read his speeches and studied his history that I have said what I did. Reading the excerpt you posted only underscores the point. MLK, when he abandoned his role as a pastor and took up his position as a civil rights leader, effectively had to switch allegiances.
You've never read his speeches or studied his history so you actually know nothing about Martin Luther King. Did you even read the excerpt I posted?
While his status as a Christian is not in question, there can also be no doubt that he considered the supposedly common ground of fairness and justice a higher calling to trumpet than either the Gospel for the unbeliever or doctrine for the believer.
In my book, when given the multiple choice of determining what is more important than the Gospel for the unbeliever and doctrine for the believer against a field of any other category of concern, the response is always "none of the above."
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut the aim of God is the establishing of His will on earth, isn't it? "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..."
If curing the devil's world were His aim, this is what He would have left us with. We aren't left behind to make the world a better place.
But the aim of God is the establishing of His will on earth, isn't it? "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." Of course, this means spreading the Good News, but it also means righting wron ...[text shortened]... And in some small way all his children ought to likewise stand for justice in this world.[/b]
The Lord's Prayer was created for a specific group of people during a specific time in history. Applying it when inappropriate leads to all manner of disasters.
Again, there is nothing wrong with 'righting wrongs,' insofar as these efforts are put in their proper perspective, i.e., secondary to the primary work of the Gospel.
Originally posted by rwingettAnd, in your religion, all of it (pie in the sky) is gained through our efforts. What an affront to absolute righteousness. Arrogance perfected!
In Freaky's interpretation, religion really IS the opiate of the masses. Why should they try to change the world when they can sit around, do nothing, and get 'pie in the sky when they die'? I can't imagine a greater perversion of what Jesus had to say.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh, so the title of this thread is not Wwmlkd but WWFKBHD? Now I understand, you not only speak for MLK - you also speak for all Christians. What date is your national holiday? (Don't want to miss the celebration.)
It is precisely because I have read his speeches and studied his history that I have said what I did. Reading the excerpt you posted only underscores the point. MLK, when he abandoned his role as a pastor and took up his position as a civil rights leader, effectively had to switch allegiances.
While his status as a Christian is not in question, ...[text shortened]... against a field of any other category of concern, the response is always "none of the above."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvery aspect of Christianity was created for a specific group of people during a specific time in history. Keeping Christianity locked in that specific time and place, instead of updating it to contemporary ones is 'applying it when inappropriate' and it leads to all manner of disasters.
Not sure I follow.
Originally posted by rwingettThere's a protocol to God's system. When we don't follow it, it leads to the mentioned disasters. The Church doing this when it should be doing that, and so forth. During the time that we're in, we aren't supposed to concerning ourselves with making the world a better place. Doing so in the name of God has foisted some of the lamest and most dangerous situations faced by man.
Every aspect of Christianity was created for a specific group of people during a specific time in history. Keeping Christianity locked in that specific time and place, instead of updating it to contemporary ones is 'applying it when inappropriate' and it leads to all manner of disasters.
Here's an example of lame that turned dangerous: prohibition.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYep, and laws against gay-marriage, too!
There's a protocol to God's system. When we don't follow it, it leads to the mentioned disasters. The Church doing this when it should be doing that, and so forth. During the time that we're in, we aren't supposed to concerning ourselves with making the world a better place. Doing so in the name of God has foisted some of the lamest and most dangerous situations faced by man.
Here's an example of lame that turned dangerous: prohibition.
Originally posted by TerrierJackI think you mean laws for gay marriage, don't you? Until recently, there never was the idiocy that considered it possible for two people of the same gender to be married.
Yep, and laws against gay-marriage, too!
Even still, it really shouldn't be a concern of the Christian whether the laws of the land support their world views. That's not supposed to be our sphere of influence.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe separation of church and state does not mean that religious leaders should refrain from trying to alleviate the plight of the poor through the political system. That is not an issue that is specific to Christianity, but is a universal one.
There's a protocol to God's system. When we don't follow it, it leads to the mentioned disasters. The Church doing this when it should be doing that, and so forth. During the time that we're in, we aren't supposed to concerning ourselves with making the world a better place. Doing so in the name of God has foisted some of the lamest and most dangerous situations faced by man.
Here's an example of lame that turned dangerous: prohibition.
Originally posted by rwingettCompletely agree.
The separation of church and state does not mean that religious leaders should refrain from trying to alleviate the plight of the poor through the political system. That is not an issue that is specific to Christianity, but is a universal one.
The question comes down to: what is the priority? Given that this is a timed event, ought the Christian be spending his time working against global warming or telling people about the Good News?
My postulation at the onset considered whether MLK would return to earth and continue the work of his later life--- or return with a renewed sense of urgency toward the Gospel and/or doctrine?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHKnowing of the 'Good News' compels us to act in such a way as to demonstrate that we are worthy of receiving that 'Good News.' I believe it is a standard tenet of Christianity that works are a demonstration of faith.
Completely agree.
The question comes down to: what is the priority? Given that this is a timed event, ought the Christian be spending his time working against global warming or telling people about the Good News?
My postulation at the onset considered whether MLK would return to earth and continue the work of his later life--- or return with a renewed sense of urgency toward the Gospel and/or doctrine?
Originally posted by rwingettAnother of your twists of logic. If we were worthy of receiving the Good News, we wouldn't have needed it in the first place, would we!
Knowing of the 'Good News' compels us to act in such a way as to demonstrate that we are worthy of receiving that 'Good News.' I believe it is a standard tenet of Christianity that works are a demonstration of faith.