Martin Luther King.....Questions about him....What is your feeling on him.......

[Vader]

If that's how you interpret it - I cannot change that...everyone has the power of choice - a God-given talent.

Nice talk.

Most of it wasn't my interpretation. If the people there really thought he meant "go pray first before you stone her" then she'd be dead. That is evidence that "pray before stoning" isn't what he was talking about. I'm interested to hear what your evidence for death by prayer is from the text.

 

[bermudasteel]

Most of it wasn't my interpretation. If the people there really thought he meant "go pray first before you stone her" then she'd be dead. That is evidence that "pray before stoning" isn't what he was talking about. I'm interested to hear what your evidence for death by prayer is from the text.

I'll make this quick.

When Jesus, IMO, "turned the tables" on the angry mob - he posed the question to them, as you've eluded to, "if any man be without sin, then cast the first stone" (I summarized). I'm not sure where my opinion got mixed up in the translation that "to confess one's sins would give he/she free reprieve to stone the harlot". The Bible states, that we must "die daily" to simply make it through the obstacles of each day - it also ask us not to judge - lest we be judged.

So, in closing, I think that Dr. Martin Luther King, while a stumbling, bumbling human of a man, he made great contributions to this world in the form of abolishing segregation. Just think, if he didn't accomplish that - would we even be having this conversation without either of us thinking that the other is lesser of a man???

 

[Gareth]

I wonder if he ever reflected on sleeping with so many woman and thought...


"It's good to be the King.."

 

[Vader]

I'll make this quick.

When Jesus, IMO, "turned the tables" on the angry mob - he posed the question to them, as you've eluded to, "if any man be without sin, then cast the first stone" (I summarized). I'm not sure where my opinion got mixed up in the translation that "to confess one's sins would give he/she free reprieve to stone the harlot". The Bible states, that we must "die daily" to simply make it through the obstacles of each day - it also ask us not to judge - lest we be judged.

So, in closing, I think that Dr. Martin Luther King, while a stumbling, bumbling human of a man, he made great contributions to this world in the form of abolishing segregation. Just think, if he didn't accomplish that - would we even be having this conversation without either of us thinking that the other is lesser of a man???

Fair point. However, as you know, the Bible uses the word judge in multiple contexts. Paul refutes Peter to his face because he is playing both sides of an issue. He also tells the church they should have kicked out a guy that was sleeping with his step mother. The NT is full of judgment that is made by individual people on others. The Bible is talking about final judgment that belongs to God when it says "don't judge". It doesn't mean to allow everything and anything. It also means to know who's jurisdiction the punishment is under. Final judgment belongs to God. Some judgments belong to the church while others belong to the civil authorities. The death penalty belongs to the civil authorities not a mob.

Now with respect to King, he was given a pass for his transgression simply because of his status. The 1960's weren't the 1860's. There were already champions of civil rights before, during and after King. The country was already changing.

Also King said himself to judge a man by his character. He judged other by their actions, why is it unreasonable to judge him by his?

 

[oneforthebus]

Now with respect to King, he was given a pass for his transgression simply because of his status.

He was given a pass because nobody really knew about it. Likely because the people who could have exposed him had their own issues in that department.

Also King said himself to judge a man by his character. He judged other by their actions, why is it unreasonable to judge him by his?

The question is whether his infidelities should render his accomplishments unworthy of recognition. When we celebrate MLK day, we aren't really celebrating MLK the family man or preacher. He represents the civil rights movement. At least that's the way I view it.

 

[Vader]

He was given a pass because nobody really knew about it. Likely because the people who could have exposed him had their own issues in that department.



The question is whether his infidelities should render his accomplishments unworthy of recognition. When we celebrate MLK day, we aren't really celebrating MLK the family man or preacher. He represents the civil rights movement. At least that's the way I view it.

There were people around him that knew it and covered for him. And again, I want it to go both ways. Hell I remember Reagan getting heat because he had remarried. I remember Newt Gingrich getting hammered by the left because he divorced his wife while she was in the hospital. Nobody cares about accomplishments when you talk about a conservative. It's all "He's a sleazy politician that did X to his family".

Again why should King be allowed to judge others based on their actions but we can't judge him based on his? He brought up character. He was ordained by the church. He lied to his family and followers and broke his vows to the church and his wife. Sorry but I have little respect for someone like that.

And like I said, there were others that were leading the civil rights movement. He wasn't a one man show. Change was already coming. I have much more respect for Rosa Parks and the other early leaders of the movement.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I haven't researched him at all. My impression is that he was doing important stuff in the right way and paid for it with his life. Hero in my book.

 

[Coach]

I wish he was alive today. I bet he'd be mortified by all this "Hands Up / I Am Trangel" bullshit and the riots, the cop killing, the knock out game, the unemployment, the drugs, the rap and thug culture and the missing baby daddies.

I agree. King was for liberty and justice. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson types are in the race baiting / extortion business.

Keep in mind King never said he was marching for black rights. He did it for civil rights. Boy we can use him today. I used to really respect Bill Cosby's message to black youths, and his show. Sadly its ruined and he's a rapists.

 

[Superman]

I wonder if he ever reflected on sleeping with so many woman and thought...


"It's good to be the King.."

could you imagine the persuasive oratory that came bellowing forth when he told them to keep their ***** mouths shut about it?

"Do not tell with whom you lay with, for that is not what you should say. Instead, love the flesh of the gigantic pipe being laid in you, then be silent and request more another day."

or something

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I haven't researched him at all. My impression is that he was doing important stuff in the right way and paid for it with his life. Hero in my book.

I've been to the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. MLK was in Memphis not for a civil rights march but to support a Memphis sanitation workers' (i.e. garbagemen) strike, which they had every right to do.

 

[Stainless]

He would have definitely been one of my black friends.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

That wasn't his intent at all. Do you really think Jesus was saying "If you have confessed your sins to God then please go ahead and stone her."? You really think that is his point? Jesus was saying that they were all guilty of adultery as well. They didn't even bring the guy she was caught with... probably because it was one of them. She was probably setup to test Jesus and to put him into a no win situation. Jesus turned the tables on them.

This situation has nothing to do with a full fledge ordained minister cheating with multiple women on his wife. He's a hypocrite. I understand he had good ideas and he was the voice of an entire race of people. But that doesn't change the fact that he was a womanizing cheater. If he were a republican or an evangelical preacher that wasn't a democrat he'd be raked over the coals. I don't remember anyone standing up for Jimmy Swaggart.

You are really taking an odd angle on this. The parable suggests what many in the New Testament have said. Judge not, spec of dust, etc. It is a pretty consistent message.

 

[oneforthebus]

He would have definitely been one of my black friends.

You could be his wingman.

 

[Vader]

You are really taking an odd angle on this. The parable suggests what many in the New Testament have said. Judge not, spec of dust, etc. It is a pretty consistent message.

You are using the word Judgment to represent everything that is judged. Which is wrong in NT theology. Again did Paul judge Peter? Have you read about that in the NT? Some people really have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to biblical judgment. Paul told the church to "judge" a guy that was sleeping with his step mother. He was kicked out of the church. So please tell me were they wrong to do that? According to some here they were wrong to do that but the church did it and was told to do it by Paul. So I'll take the NT to mean what it says and disagree with people that have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Stainless]

Now that this thread has turned into a Bible interpretation, it's going to take at least 6-7 pages to get that sorted out. I'll jump back in when the discussion is once again focused on my man MLK and his b****es.

 

[Southern Steeler]

I would throw out another example....King David.

He had an affair and had the husband killed. Yet, he was one of God's chosen people.

 

[Vader]

I would throw out another example....King David.

He had an affair and had the husband killed. Yet, he was one of God's chosen people.

I never said people couldn't be forgiven. However David was not allowed to build the temple because of his sin. That fell to his son Solomon. Their son also died. There are consequences to sin. Again I'm not judging King's salvation. I'm judging his actions just like people judge people's actions all the time. There are NO examples in the OT or NT of God saying not to judge people's actions. The only issues is who's domain does it fall under. If it is a salvational issue then it falls to God.

Also David was a King NOT a priest. He was a political leader not a spiritual leader.

How about what the NT says about law suits against believers? Do any of you have any idea how that was suppose to work?

1Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? 2Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?…

Wait I thought judgment was just for God and we can't judge anything...

 

[bermudasteel]

He would have definitely been one of my black friends.

I resemble that remark!!!

 

[bermudasteel]

You are using the word Judgment to represent everything that is judged. Which is wrong in NT theology. Again did Paul judge Peter? Have you read about that in the NT? Some people really have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to biblical judgment. Paul told the church to "judge" a guy that was sleeping with his step mother. He was kicked out of the church. So please tell me were they wrong to do that? According to some here they were wrong to do that but the church did it and was told to do it by Paul. So I'll take the NT to mean what it says and disagree with people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Point taken; but, again, since I did bring up the parable - the focus/intent is that Jesus simply stated, "if any among them have no sin - then cast forth the first stone". As Charles stated, it's pretty clear and definitively evident that this was how most people understand the parable. Perhaps the King James version is to wordy and its meaning has been watered down in other translations??? I'm not sure...

 

[bermudasteel]

I would throw out another example....King David.

He had an affair and had the husband killed. Yet, he was one of God's chosen people.

Excellent choice, SS...

As you've eluded too - God took a murderous, adulterous man and molded him into one of the greatest kings of Biblical history. Even today, Jerusalem is STILL KNOWN AS "The City of David"...

 

[Vader]

Point taken; but, again, since I did bring up the parable - the focus/intent is that Jesus simply stated, "if any among them have no sin - then cast forth the first stone". As Charles stated, it's pretty clear and definitively evident that this was how most people understand the parable. Perhaps the King James version is to wordy and its meaning has been watered down in other translations??? I'm not sure...

It doesn't matter how most people take the parable. It only matters what Jesus meant in the parable. This is the problem with most Christians and most people that claim to be Christian. They talk about things in the Bible that they have NO idea what they mean. Do you really think Jesus meant if they prayed they could go ahead and stone her? You really think that? Nope. You just want to cover for MLK. You use the Bible to cover for your beliefs. I guess you think the parable means you can do anything you want to right? Stealing? No problem.. remember you can't judge me so it's ok. Murder? Ok David did it so it's perfectly ok.... right?

Excellent choice, SS...

As you've eluded too - God took a murderous, adulterous man and molded him into one of the greatest kings of Biblical history. Even today, Jerusalem is STILL KNOWN AS "The City of David"...

It's known as the city of David because he moved the capitol there during his reign. But I'd never expect you to know that. David made one mistake with one woman. David was severely punished by God and even lost his son. He repented and went through hell for it. And AGAIN he was NOT a priest. He was a political figure. Again, you are just spinning to try to cover for MLK. But that's what people do to Christianity. They use it when they need it and when they don't it's toss away. BTW can you tell me why King Saul was removed?