Wwmlkd?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Humility. Thats what you said that must precede the search for Bible truth and knowledge... humility.

So when are you developing some. 🙂

I mean you play Mr Know It All for us normal humans. And thats not so bad.
But saying that the Lords Prayer is not for our time and then refusing to explain why is just plain ole arrogance.

you mean like signalling others out for exercising their own consciences in private matters, through their evaluation of scripture, yup that's real humble! why should another's freedom be judged by you? who appointed you judge of another's conscience? yup a real humble pie festival there.

I still don't understand what these cryptic egotistical rantings have to do with Dr. King. They sound like a cry for therapy or intervention. I knew a few guys from Oklahoma once who talked like that but I got real tired of them telling me the holocaust was a lie so I found something better to do.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Is the Lord's Prayer irrelevant today? God no longer wishes to establish His will on earth? I doubt that.
Emphatically, the Lord's Prayer is not for our time. His will is no where close to being established on this planet. It will be, but not during our dispensation.

How are works of righteousness secondary to the Gospel? Are we n should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).
What are these good works of which Paul speaks?[/b]

Emphatically, the Lord's Prayer is not for our time. His will is no where close to being established on this planet. It will be, but not during our dispensation.

Didn't Jesus say the Kingdom of God is at hand? How then can you say that it is not?

With all due respect, dispensationalism ought to be taken with a grain of salt. The Lord's prayer is indeed meant for today, and every day, as well as in the sense which you mean it. In fact, ever since Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the Kingdom of God has been advancing. Christ and the apostles demonstrated, through miracles, that the Kingdom of God was imminent and presently drawing people to Christ and destroying the works of the enemy. The Kingdom of God is still at hand, and God's will is still accomplished on earth as it is in heaven through all those who believe and obey the Spirit of God.

Yes, we pray for the permanent establishment of God's Kingdom on earth at some future time, but during the interim between now and then (while Satan's kingdom is allowed to endure), we are to pray for and expect the advancement of God's Kingdom in the very midst of enemy territory. There is no doubt that the Lord's Prayer is meant for today, sir.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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."

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."

Right: you're a fundamentalist of sorts. I like the characterization of fundamentalism given by Scott Bidstrup, in his essay "Why the 'Fundamentalist' Approach to Religion Must Be Wrong":

"Fundamentalism is variously described by various authors, but to me it really boils down to a rather simple test: In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part. Fundamentalist religions make this choice because they uniformly place a high priority on doctrinal conformity, with such force that it takes higher priority than love, compassion and service. Indeed, many fundamentalists are so caught up in doctrinal seriousness, that love, service and compassion seem scarcely to even be a part of their thinking."

Fortunately for a lot of people, MLK was not a fundamentalist like that.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that you don't seem to have your priorities straight. But, you don't seem to have your priorities straight.

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.

Well...I should hope so.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]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."

Right: you're a fundamentalist of sorts. I like the characterization of fundamentalism given by Scott Bids ...[text shortened]... pel for the unbeliever or doctrine for the believer.[/b]

Well...I should hope so.[/b]

Recommended!

As Dr. King said (in the same speech I quoted earlier): "This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind."

It is precisely because they see something as more important than this that fundamentalists are able to commit the horrible acts they sometimes do (and in the process they miss the things that could bring us all together regardless of how we feel about a particular doctrine.)

Originally posted by LemonJello
.. when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part. ....

Christians are well aware of that fact and they know that it is contrary to the teachings of both Christ and Paul to place anything above love and charity.

Christ condemned the Pharisees for doing just that.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Christ also lived by example .. He lived like a simple humble man, who spent his time with the drunks and prostitutes and sinners. He condemned the blind uncompassionate application of the law and emphasised love and forgiveness.

Paul issued a similar statement which basically says that you can have all the knowledge, faith, intelligence and the gifts of prophecy etc etc .. if you have not love /charity, you have nothing. Why do Christians ignore these passages? I dont really know. Maybe is a common human failing to try to exclude others from your 'exclusive' group. It certainly is not Christlike.

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1Co 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Co 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
were not the apostles of Christ put under the same charge, that they were ordinary and unlettered?

(Acts 4:13) . . .Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering.. . .

Different scope for a different purpose. Why were subsequent teachers commanded to "study to show yourself approved," if academic learning were so eschewed?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Humility. Thats what you said that must precede the search for Bible truth and knowledge... humility.

So when are you developing some. 🙂

I mean you play Mr Know It All for us normal humans. And thats not so bad.
But saying that the Lords Prayer is not for our time and then refusing to explain why is just plain ole arrogance.

So when are you developing some. 🙂
Hey! I'm more humble than you... wait: that didn't come out right.

I mean you play Mr Know It All for us normal humans. And thats not so bad.
But saying that the Lords Prayer is not for our time and then refusing to explain why is just plain ole arrogance.
Who says I'm playing? The fact of the issue is, on biblical matters, I only know more than a few. You just happen to be part of that small group. Knowing isn't doing, by any means, but it's a much better starting point.

Like you and a few other posters herein, I formerly lived (read: tried to live) the Bible as though it were the script for life and the straight-forward reading was the only method possible for ascertaining truth. Despite the Bible's warnings otherwise, I was taught by experience that such a decision--- based upon arrogance veiling itself as humility--- can only have disastrous results.

Only when we truly submit ourselves to His word, regardless of where it takes us, will we ever begin to understand and in turn live the Christian life.

Because of your reactions to some basic Christian doctrines, it is apparent that dialogue with you along the lines of doctrine is pointless. Since you have such difficulty with grace, how can you hope to understand dispensations?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I still don't understand what these cryptic egotistical rantings have to do with Dr. King. They sound like a cry for therapy or intervention. I knew a few guys from Oklahoma once who talked like that but I got real tired of them telling me the holocaust was a lie so I found something better to do.

It's a post of speculation. Assuming MLK's salvation, now that he's been given a view of eternity from eternity's side (as opposed to the view that he had from this side), if he were allowed to return to earth, would his mission be more akin to what he pursued in his later life--- civil rights--- or would he return to the mission of his former life--- the Gospel and doctrine?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Emphatically, the Lord's Prayer is not for our time. His will is no where close to being established on this planet. It will be, but not during our dispensation.

Didn't Jesus say the Kingdom of God is at hand? How then can you say that it is not?

With all due respect, dispensationalism ought to be taken with a grain of salt. The Lord's prayer ...[text shortened]... t of enemy territory. There is no doubt that the Lord's Prayer is meant for today, sir.[/b]

Didn't Jesus say the Kingdom of God is at hand?
And, wasn't it? We cannot take one passage out of its context and simply apply it to any time frame or situation, without all kinds of unintended consequences.

With all due respect, dispensationalism ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
As should any aspect of knowledge. What's the point?

There is no doubt that the Lord's Prayer is meant for today, sir.
The dissertation you provided fails to support this conclusion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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."

Right: you're a fundamentalist of sorts. I like the characterization of fundamentalism given by Scott Bidstru ...[text shortened]... pel for the unbeliever or doctrine for the believer.[/b]

Well...I should hope so.[/b]

Right: you're a fundamentalist of sorts.
No more so than, say, you for example.

... when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
Let's test this hypothetical definition and see if it truly works. The first issue is conflict between truth and 'love, compassion and caring.' Already, we have a false dichotomy, or at the very least an extremely ill-defined one. According to this hare-brained perspective, 'love, compassion and caring' are the only things by which an action can be judged--- despite the fact that 'love, compassion and caring' are themselves without any border or boundary. Whatever does Bidstrup mean by these terms, or is he acquiescing to the fact that some things are transcendent?

If these qualities are themselves transcendent, upon what are they based, if not truth? Do they not therefore rely on truth for their very existence? Or, is it possible to love and not serve truth? When you assume a position to correct my priorities, are you speaking from a position of love or truth? When you place fairness and justice above the Gospel, is this informed by your sense of love or truth?

Whichever way you respond, do you see how your brush paints you every bit of a fundamentalist as it rendered me?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Right: you're a fundamentalist of sorts.
No more so than, say, you for example.

... when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
Let's test this hypothetica ...[text shortened]... d, do you see how your brush paints you every bit of a fundamentalist as it rendered me?[/b]

The assumption you seem to be making is that you know what the 'truth' is.

Originally posted by rwingett
The assumption you seem to be making is that you know what the 'truth' is.

I have pretty good idea. What's yours based on?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Different scope for a different purpose. Why were subsequent teachers commanded to "study to show yourself approved," if academic learning were so eschewed?

yes study is important, but not an end in itself as you were pontificating, as if being a pastor with an understanding of Greek , Hebrew and ancient Chaldean would entitle one to a fourth dimensional panoramic vision, in fact i cannot think of one instance where Christ used anything but common everyday items and occurrences in his teaching, but then again i have never met a pastor that knew what he was talking about either.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I have pretty good idea. What's yours based on?

I do not presume to know the truth. At least not in this matter. And I do not believe you do either. Therefore, any approach which places doctrine above pragmatism is fatally flawed. Working for the betterment of your fellow human beings in the here and now has tangible benefits which can readily be appreciated. Working toward some hypothetical afterlife is rife with idle speculation and empty phantasms. And if it turns out that there is some sort of afterlife, then doing good here will likely be the surest way of achieving it. If there is a god, I would bet he is more concerned with the public actions of mankind than with their private beliefs.