Why MLK was NOT Christian

Why are you afraid to read the link?

 

Like the Founders, I'm a Christian. Were there any of a different religion?

I'm not arguing against separation of church and state, although we have no separation of faith and state. The Founders simply didn't want an established church, like some states had until the 1820s.

The Founders disagreed with you. They thought our rights come from God, and are loaned to politicians upon the will of the people.

His kingdom was not of this world, why would He?

Exactly contrary to Jesus' commands.

Huh? Show me the 100,000,000 killed by capitalism. I reject that word, it is Marxist terminology. Capitalism isn't an 'ism', it's a natural pattern of human behavior that's been around as long as man has in which goods and services are voluntarily exchanged for mutual benefit.

British Hong Kong had very few restraints on the free market system, how were they harmed by that policy?

 

No, I don't see blaming Adam for anything at all as useful.

Considering the Eden story as a story of a mistake (or misakes) made by an individual hits me as pointless. If it doesn't say something serious and fundamental about US, then surely it is empty. The idea that a just god would hold us accountable for the mistake of one ancient just doesn't have much traction.

On the other hand, as an allegory describing the flawed nature of all humans, it seems to be of reasonably significant interest. If one is to believe in Genesis, I think it has to be with the attitude that WE are Adam. And, his flaws are our flaws - something for which there is ample evidence outside of the Bible as well.

 

Is your vocabulary limited to that one accusation?

 

There were those who people on THIS thread would consider to be NOT Christians.

We have separation of faith and state.

The way you can tell is that the religious faith of individuals is not a justification for making law or policy. For example, faith gets discounted by the Supreme Court on issues such as laws against women on abortion and on same sex marriage - even though the Supreme Court is dominated by conservative judges with a majority of Catholics.

You can't separate faith and religion.

That was very clearly a flourish of phrase chose as a way to indicate that the rights are inseparable and permanent requirements. There is nothing to indicate that Christianity is about rights.

Earlier, you claim that rights come from Christianity. Now, you claim that there is no reason for Jesus, the foundation of modern Christianity, to say anything about rights.

You can't really have it both ways. And, not once did Jesus make a comment about rights or any other feature that government should demonstrate.

We can say that now. However, the people of the time of Jesus did not interpret Christianity and the words of Jesus as you now want to do.

And, that was true all the way up to the separation of church and state that our founders devised. There was no significant record of religion being able to identify or respect rights of man.

The death count you want to claim comes from tyrannical despots, NOT an economic system.

The restraints we have enacted come from the recognition of problems we face.

What restrainst Hong Kong had or didn't have were judged by them. How happy various populations segments felt is something strongly tied to their history, their culture (their expectations, their methods of caring for those in need, etc.), the bases of their economy, etc. If you want to analyze that and propose fixes to our system based on that, fine.

But, just claiming they were happy doesn't really address any question we face today.

 

If you have something to say, then SAY it.

 

For the same reason anyone who is not an idiot does not get tricked into a wild goose chase.

It was not out of fear that I did not click on the link - the specific rational is plainly given - So why are you making things up and attributing these stories to me.

What is it with folks who can not make a post without false accusation ? It this all you have in your arsenal Matey ?!

 

No - Let me just give you a link instead - Not sure what my argument is but .. Your Wrong - and its in the link -

Is it just me or is this not intentional mindless stupidity - akin to Trolling

if the shoe fits

and it definitely fits here.

 

I did. Now can you answer my question or should I repeat it?

 

You know how to stretch the rules, but projection doesn't change the fact that it's obvious you either did not read this thread OR you don't know HOW to read it.

 

You keep talking but don't say anything - You post a link - but give no comment - claiming "False - look here" Without quoting from the link or saying what is false.

Such childish games

 

Jesus believed in a literal Adam.

 

Dodge noted.

 

What was dodged ? What on earth are you talking about. The man without voice dribbling out cryptic murmurings .

I stated why it is idiotic to post a link without commentary - and run around crying "False False" on that basis.

It is because engaging in such tactics is such mindless silliness - that it is a violation of forum policy.

I did not dodge this idiotic activity - I called it out for what it is. It is is you who is dodging this reality - reduced to a pile on the floor murmuring to yourself - only able to utter unsupported gibberish.

 

Sure - feel free to repeat your question.
Thanks!

 

I've never seen evidience of that.

If you have a cite from the Bible (I presume), please post it.

 

Is your vocabulary limited to that one accusation? The context of the question is that you accuse everyone of an ad hom (sic) every time you can't brow beat them.

 

My understanding is that you don't believe MLK Jr. was a Chrisian.

The differences between your beliefs and the beliefs of our founders are pretty much the same as what I suspect are the differences between your beliefs and those of our founders.

You believe in miracles. Thomas Jefferson certainly did not.

You believe in Biblical literalism. That's not true for several founders.

You believe in a God who is active in our lives on Earth today. Several founders did not.

In fact, the majority of our founders were deists or strongly influenced by deism, rejecting the supernaturalism of Christianity.

In post 79 you promote the idea that those who have this kind of heterodoxy are not Christians. And, now you want to turn around and claim their advances were because of their Christianity. That's a difficult argument to make. If anything, their combined influence came more from deism.

BUT, I would suggest that the larger issue is that Madison, Jefferson, and others drew upon theory of government and their experience as the source for the important improvements that they created.

They chose to separate religion from government in strong terms. Madison strongly opposed the idea of having chaplins in congress or in the military, for example. They chose to have a president whose actions are examined and controled by checks and balances available to congress. They chose to declare that humans have rights that are fundamental to being human and thus must be respected.

These are not characteristics derived from religion. These are derived from the experience of religious tyranny that had such a long history in western government - the tyranny that caused groups to take the great risk and expense of leaving Europe, the tyranny that is seen in "taxation without representation", the tyranny that caused our founders to see government as being of, by and for the people, not eminating from a superior will of any source.

 

You know how to dance around getting infractions on this board. Otherwise, your assessment of me and the founders IS pure, unadulterated bovine excrement as they say in slang on this board. I am in complete agreement with both the founders and framers (BTW, I have one of the largest personal libraries of their writings that exists in the U.S. and have read scores of those books.) You don't have a very good understanding of what the founders / framers were for or against.

I already made my case and I'm not repeating it or doing your work for you. If you want to make an informed and intelligent post toward me - something that is accurate and honest as opposed to the pure B.S. you post, hoping to get me to say enough for your buddies to ban me, read the freaking thread. You're wrong and what you said is lies, misrepresentations, and B.S. and NO I will not say any more as my case was made many posts ago.

 

The question before us is whether or not MLK was a Christian. I made my case many posts back. They don't need to be repeated; they need only be read. This thread is not a rehash of the arguments by dishonest people about whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation; it's not about the founders or framers. It asked us one question. Now, the reality is, if you READ this thread you find some people so bothered by the few of who understand the question and were able to answer it honestly, that they now want to sling skeet to see what sticks. It is amusing that if you read the less than 200 posts, most of them are by those insecure in their conclusions.

Unlike the people on this board I personally knew most of the men that surrounded MLK (his top lieutenants.) What I had to say about his character earlier in this thread is not political propaganda, but what his own people had to say. And the liberals have set the bar at one level for the founders and framers of this country and they've set the bar at another level for MLK. Aside from all of that, Christians realize that:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mathew 6: 24

MLK could not meet that standard. We've discussed it. There is no point in trying to brow beat me. I can only evaluate what I saw and as the Bible says, test the spirits. MLK failed at that since a person is known by the company he keeps.

 

Oh, good lord. That was you trying for ad hom. And, you can use ad hom on me more directly if that's all you've got, as I don't report anyone. Ad hom has it's own reward.

If you have a legitimate question that pertains to the OP, then ask it.

 

That post was not a response to you.

The fact that it doesn't apply to you shouldn't really be some flaming shock!

Please at least read posts to the point of knowing what and who they reference.

 

Do you have anything that does not end in the accusation of an ad hom (sic) when people disagree with you? Do you even know what an "ad hom" is?

 

My question stands.

 

Are you renewing your claim that MLK Jr committed various sins?

I've never suggested to the contrary.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make on this thread. Are you claiming that since he committed sin he is not a Christian?

Or, what?