Why MLK was NOT Christian

That's always my question to theological revisionists like MLK, if using your fallen and finite human reasoning you can discard X out of the Bible, how do you know the parts about loving your neighbor are genuine? Can't the KKK discard that using their fallen and finite reasoning?

 

Yes true. Your link proves me correct.

If you want to play that game it’s OK with me - It’s the demons who believe Martin Luther King was not a Christian. Your turn.

It is not a “smear” any more than calling someone superstitious who thinks a broken mirror will bring 7 years of bad luck. It is pure logic of observation. "Superstitious."

 

I agree with them. Do you have some kind of direct connection with them or something?

You got some bad logic going there. Many have come to faith in Christ because of logic.

 

Superstition requires nothing more than that.

My only connection is with science and logic.

Superstition is the antithesis of logic. Faith itself is the lack of logic. That is why it is called "faith" rather than knowledge, based upon understanding. A virgin giving birth? A resurrection from the dead? Believing it requires faith in the occult.

I'm not here to judge you personally so be careful of what you say.

 

That is just obscenely obscene - twisted and discombobulated .. and patently false.

First off - your link makes no mention of some Trinity in Genesis - and Catholic Scholars know full well that the "our" in "OUR" was referring to the divine Pantheon - but no self respecting religious scholar of any respectable denomination would state this.

But YES - there was Definately a Trinity - a very well established one - one known to every scholar and well - anyone who knows anything about the near east Religious beliefs at the time.

And it is these near east religious beliefs which influence all the religious customs and beliefs of the day - including those of Abraham down through the Israelites.

The Father - El - Enlil, Ellil Elyon - Creator God - God of the Mountain - God On High - God of Abraham - El Shaddai

El's Consort Asherah - Goddess of fertility - aka Ishtar - Goddess of death and Rebirth - who Christians still celebrate and worship in a way - the Goddess is not that easily removed .. celebrated by almost every culture in some way - blessings for a good harvest - The Spring Equinox - when naked virgins dance around the fire - and various other rituals and incantations to elicit blessing from the Goddess.

The annual celebration of death and rebirth is still held - and revered in Christianity - and thank goodness we kept the name so as not to defile the Goddess too much ... do you not celebrate "Easter" ? . and yes .. that's where the name comes from - but a mere sidebar...

El's son Baal completes the Trinity or El's son YHWH .. supplanting the Baal's (better described as the divine council) as Chief God- as described in various Psalms - Psalm 82 being one - where YHWH is speaking before the council of El .. El being mentioned by name. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_144.pdf

To the people of the time - the Like "US" - in "Our Image" meant the other Gods - no question .. this is what the Israelite's believes as well.

You want to read in your own meaning - Go ahead - I think this is deluded- but have at it.

The FACT of the matter however - is that to the audience of the day - "US" "Our Image" meant the divine Pantheon.

Sorry - but this is not debated in serious circles .. Go to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and you will find that the God of Abraham is "EL"

This is no big deal however - and nor does this make the Israelites Polytheists - They believed in the existence of other Gods - but they only were to worship one

Sorry to burst your bubble - but what some person with some religious doctrine 3500 years later thinks about some God/Son/Spirit Trinity has no bearing on what the people of the day thought.

Your claim is way far off from passing the giggle test in serious circles .. and "Demonstrably False".

Someone has been selling you some bad koolaid .

 

My Friend - but he says that works are sufficient many times in so many ways throughout the Sermon.

"Blessed are the "poor" in spirit - for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven" - pssst - over here - the bar is not high

"Only those more righteous than the Pharisees and lawmakers" pssst - hey - you - the bar is not high

"Do not do to others which is hateful to you - This sums up the Law and the Prophets" psssst - bar not high

"It is not the hearers of the word - but the doers" - level of bar not given but - talk is cheap "Not all who cry Jesus Jesus will make it through the pearly gates" Not all who have accepted Jesus as their precious savior will make it - this is made clear.

Pssst - the bar is not high - but you have to do something you worthless good for nothing wretch of a human (not referring to you here)

 

THIS POSTER GETS IT! Beyond this, all else is the equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

King preached one of the cornerstones of modern Christianity...non-violent resistance to what is wrong in society. Period.

 

There were (and are) millions of "bible believers" who do not act on the principles clearly laid out by Jesus in the Bible.

They may well be believers in Jesus as their savior, but they fail to pass the test presented by Jesus as related by Matthew in chapter 25. They fail to seek out those in need and provide help.

And, as a result of that failure of works, they are cast out.

I don't see a possible intepretation other than that the God of the bible requires action. Without that, those who have chosen to accept Jesus as their savior may still be rejected by God due to their failure.

Dr. MLK Jr. was a dedicated champion of those in need.

Not that many national leaders can claim that.

 

Well, as an athesit there is a limit to how far I want to go here, of course.

But, my Christian faith training pointed to two requirements - accepting Jesus as ones personal savior, and walking the walk - John 3:16 plus Matthew 25, especially 31 and on.

As stated in Matthew 25, there are requirements on how one must live ones life. These requirements are stated to be deadly serious.

But, as per Ephesians 2:8- (or so) we are told that such works by themselves are not sufficient.

You point out that the bar isn't that high. But, it's not easy for humans to live those principles in any significant measure. And, our actions and leadership in this Christian majority nation are strong testimony in support of that point.

 

I do not see a justification for requiring these allagories to be seen as literal.

 

Well, that was Paul speakikng long after Jesus had died.

And, I think it IS accepted by pretty much all Christians that one will be judged by one's works.

But, that doesn't mean that works are the only requirement. That is, it doesn't state that works are sufficient.

One must remember that this is the same apostle who wrote to the church in Ephesus stating that works are not sufficient.

There is a significant difference between being required and being sufficient.

 

I respect your lack of theism - but bet I could make you waffle on that claim - another time. You make some points

1) John does not exist yet - and the perspective we are after is what did the "Judeo Christians believe" - as in from the Church of Jerusalem - founded by the disciples after his death - led by his brother James.

2) nobody knows about Paul yet - when is Jesus is preaching - and Paul never does know much about Jesus 'sfar as we know from his writings ... now - at the time of Mark/ and early Matt (round temple destruction) - we have this faction of Christians that while they know about Paul - they certainly don't follow him - That Faction is the Church of Jerusalem - and this is well recorded in the NT in Luke/Acts -for those that care.

This faction 60-80 AD - have Mark/Matt to go on - as anything close to what this faction might have believed.

By the time we get to John ( 100-120 AD) big changes have happened - the church is distancing itself from its Jewish roots - John is a Hellenistic Pauline Fusion work - which elevates the status of Jesus divinity to "Logos"

Jesus was not preaching to the followers of Paul - nor the followers of the latter Pauline Fusion Johanine Church

The folks that did hear the word from the disciples - and the Church of Jerusalem had disappeared from literary record by the time John was being penned.

So what I am getting at is - how would have the early non Pauline Church taken the words of Jesus - and Mark/Matt - texts or part therof these people would be familiar - have an ideology . .. and so on - Jewish Christians but also other adherents of that Church.

This perspective is lost to us - and Paul is of little assistance.

One perspective that does exist in the Bible -and that is of assistance is James 2 - which unfortunately - is opposed to a group of Pauline Christians who are preaching a "Faith Alone" doctrine. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2&version=NIV

I am not sure that Paul would warm to Luthers "Sola Fide" in the way modern Protestantism does.

Luther wanted James removed from the Bible - .. for obvious reasons.

Short story long - I am after the perspective of the early "non Pauline" branch of Christs Followers - which of course includes the disciples - each and every one.

 

The FBI is well known to have made strong and highly political attacks on MLK.

J Edgar Hoover made Dr. King a target of his COINTELPRO operation. He considered Dr. King to be a radical and a communist. Dr. King was hated for adding the Vietnam war to the list of what he opposed, as it became clear that war was being paid for in the blood of the poor and racial minorities and that our efforts were slaughtering huge numbers of Vietnamese.

By that time his ministry was not just about the plight of racism in America, but included the poor of all colors.

 

He unified the civil rights movement, basing it in sound Christian principles and nonviolence.

His accomplishments are something all America should be proud of, even as we struggle to maintain that direction.

 

Much like they did to Trump with the Russia hoax Durham is investigating.

 

I believe it was Augustine who said, if you only believe in the parts of the Bible you believe in, it isn't the Bible you believe in but yourself.

Jesus believed those events were factual, what right does someone calling themselves a Christ-follower have to claim greater knowledge than Jesus Christ?

 

He can be admired for that, just as I admire pro-life activists. In both the case of the unborn and Jim Crow blacks, a certain category of humans was/is deemed to be less than human.

 

I really don't care what MLK's religion is.

 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

He was (no doubt) referring to the fact that Christ never claimed to be the Messiah and he never even suggested that he performed any of the superstitious miracles that the later-to-be-known-as-Christians like preach.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Jesus was one of an untold number of prophets, that's all. End of story.

 

Ghandi was killed by a fellow Hindu, so I guess that makes his religion wrong too?

Wrong, numerous times he claimed to be God.

What are you talking about?

Let me know when you find another one who fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles and rose from the dead.

 

And you have faith also, unless you can tell me exactly how the first non-life became life, or what set off the Big Bang. You're beginning from a premise of a uniformity of causes in a closed system, which I reject. IF god exists and IF Jesus really walked on the water, what could science possible say about that event 2,000 years later? The only way we have to judge it's veracity is the testimony of those who were there, or those who interviewed those who were there, and the evidence of their changed lives.

 

His religion is in very close relation with death so your rhetorical question makes no sense what-so-ever and doesn’t have anything to do with it in the first place, plus the fact that he was murdered for his political weaknesses… not because of his religion.

False, he never claimed to be god.

There were no miracles performed, that is what I am talking about.

The fact that “the” Messiah has never arrived is in perfect conjunction with the fact that the prophecies, miracles, and resurrection have never occurred. Well, anyone can see it’s a hoax even if they’ve never heard of the biblical fairy tales.

No, I have no faith.

What does the Big Band have to do with me? I didn’t even mention it.

No, I am beginning with a completely open system and the fact that you reject such an open system indicates very strongly that it frightens you. Everyone would like to know the meaning of life. Some of us accept the fact that the answer is unattainable, so far. Others cannot function well without knowing what lies at the end of the road. Many people are dissatisfied with life and are willing to gamble and believe in hocus-pocus-superstitions as long as they know what prizes can be had if they win. Other people (as I) realize there is no prize on the shelf so we don’t gamble or believe in snake-oil salesmen. We are satisfied with life and we appreciate what we have.

So .... back to your assertion: It is within a closed system that you seek refuge .... not I. I am free and open to think, search, reason, and evaluate in an open system.

There is no proof of any god and Jesus couldn't have walked on water. It just is impossible. Have you ever tried it?

So far no one has stepped forward with proof of either of those claims.

I’ve met people who’ve quit smoking and you can see with your eyes that their lives have changed. Why shoot, my life has changed many times. Birth – puberty – war – love - marriage – fatherhood – divorce – circumnavigating the globe - marriage again – Coronavirus, etc. This is evidence of life itself.

 

I do like the Augusine quote.

But, references to Adam, Noah, etc., can be references to truths held in the allegory as opposed to being statements that the events were literal.

We have massive evidence relating to how man was made. That evidence doesn't point to there being no god. And, it doesn't negate the truths that can be found in the allegory of Adam's life concernig the nature of man, original sin, etc. - those truths that in terms of religion might be seen as more important than the physical progression.

At any rate, if you'd like to post a cite from the Bible, that might be of interest.

 

I have no idea what you mean when you suggest "uniformity of causes in a closed system" seemingly as a criticism. We do base our understanding of the universe on the evidence we gather. Also, yes, humans don't have all the answers.

I suspect you would agree that ancient recountings of miracles is a weak basis for belief in God. The miracles of Jesus are not the only miracles claimed during that era. There is testimony of miracles performed by Zoroaster, for example. And, there are others.