Dr. King

[stillfocused1]

That's a crazy question..yet, no matter what our opinions of Dr. King was or is. One is certain...he died for what he believed in and I honestly believe that he took to heart the word of God when it speaks of laying down his life..which he did without hesitation. Each time I see the clip of Dr King in Montgomery..the more I listen to the message of the Messenger. He said.."Mine eyes have seen the coming of the Glory of the Lord ". He spoke of the mountaintop..I just believe that he had an encounter with the Living God where he basically said; No my will be done..but, thy will be done. For many years as a young girl I wondered about many things..yet, the answers did not come for many years..when I visited the MLK information center in Atlanta. I stood there reading his notes and thoughts written on a notebook that is encased. He knew that many would not accept change..yet, as I continued to read I noticed something..the words that he wrote was of a time that was far off..that time is now here. I maybe wrong..yet, I believe that Dr. King was a prophet before his time..yet, no matter what he spoke what needed to be heard.

[krazeeboi]

Wow, I hope none of yall find my organic evolution essays and start a witch hunt after me.

[Guest]

I'm with you, Krazeeboi!

Give Dr. King a break and let the man rest in peace!

[lanl ns]

I read the papers last night and after reading the papers, the one thing that struck me is that there was not a Defense for Christ.

I have a problem with a "reverend" who will not defend what he believes.. no matter the platform.

My husband was asked to pray for the City Official meeting and they asked him to not end his prayer in "Jesus name".

My husband refused the opportunity to pray for the city, this was a big opportunity but he refused to denounce Jesus just to make the leaders of a city happy.

Just my 2 cents!

[ybrown]

lanl said:

I read the papers last night and after reading the papers, the one thing that struck me is that there was not a Defense for Christ.

I have a problem with a "reverend" who will not defend what he believes.. no matter the platform.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Why is this the re-occurring theme throughout this body of work. Is there a reason for it?

I'm going through a lot of Dr. King's essays and works on religion and one of the things that really stood out to me (among many others) was that in a paper entitled "The Origin of Religion in the Race," in which Dr. King examines various philosophical and anthropological arguments for the origin of religion, he agreed with the conclusion that both religion and magic are similar in that they were borne out of man's struggle in existence and his need to utilize the mana (or power) around him in his everyday life battles.

Dr. King earlier says this about mana:

All things have it: of course this does mean that mana is something universal or of abstract reality--the primitive has not risen high enough to generalize a universal reality--but it means that there is potency in every object to which man's attention is given. Mana by no means has any moral quality. It may be good or bad, favorable or dangerous, according to time or place.

The Bible condemns all kinds of witchcraft, magic, sorcery and spiritism, so I absolutely disagree with his conclusion, which sounds extremely humanistic in nature.

I can't say anything definitive, but I'm studying and learning.

My husband was asked to pray for the City Official meeting and they asked him to not end his prayer in "Jesus name".

My husband refused the opportunity to pray for the city, this was a big opportunity but he refused to denounce Jesus just to make the leaders of a city happy.

Just my 2 cents!

I applaud your husband. Some would have agreed without hesitation.

[jasmine nsi]

Exactly Krazeeboi!

Do we understand that in college course, you have to write term papers that go against the very grain of what you believe. If the teachers instruction say..write a paper on evolution and leave out GOD...then thats what you have to do.

You know what you have been taught regarding evolution, but you cannot use it in this paper. Don't say that its a compromise, or individuals are not defending or taking a stand for Christ, because that means our precious children comprise themselves everyday when they are not allowed to write anything concerning christ, in any type of paper what so ever.

[lanl ns]

jasmine said:

Exactly Krazeeboi!

Do we understand that in college course, you have to write term papers that go against the very grain of what you believe. If the teachers instruction say..write a paper on evolution and leave out GOD...then thats what you have to do.

I understand that Dr. King was in college, however he was in Seminary working on a degree in Theology......which of course theology can encompass the study of various religions and their beliefs.

However reading in context his papers, he did not have to denounce Christianity nor Jesus in order to complete these papers.

Dr. King selected not to defend Christianity in those papers.

Dr. King referenced the Bible and several Biblical scholars when writing those papers therefore I concluded that he selected not to take a stand on the belief of Christianity.

In a philosophy course one is asked "What is the nature of Reality?" and you must defend your stance. However that is philosophically speaking.

In college I had to defend why a desk was a desk? and what made it a desk? and who determined that it was a desk?

On a college level you are asked questions in order to make you think, not to dissuade your beliefs just to broaden your mental and intellectual capacity.
Upon doing so you learn how to defend your stand which is why in Master and Doctoral programs a person must defend their thesis.

Again IMHO I was shocked that Dr. King did not take a defense for the religious belief he proclaimed to have.

I am not saying, whether or not he was Saved or not, I don't know, but reading those papers Dr. King did not defend the Bible (he quoted and referenced) at all.....

[lanl ns]

krazeeboi said:

Wow, I hope none of yall find my organic evolution essays and start a witch hunt after me.

The Theory of Evolution (organic) is a theory not a Religious belief with Historical facts and evidence.

[ybrown]

lanl said:

I understand that Dr. King was in college, however he was in Seminary working on a degree in Theology......which of course theology can encompass the study of various religions and their beliefs.

However reading in context his papers, he did not have to denounce Christianity nor Jesus in order to complete these papers.

Dr. King selected not to defend Christianity in those papers.

Dr. King referenced the Bible and several Biblical scholars when writing those papers therefore I concluded that he selected not to take a stand on the belief of Christianity.

In a philosophy course one is asked "What is the nature of Reality?" and you must defend your stance. However that is philosophically speaking.

In college I had to defend why a desk was a desk? and what made it a desk? and who determined that it was a desk?

On a college level you are asked questions in order to make you think, not to dissuade your beliefs just to broaden your mental and intellectual capacity.
Upon doing so you learn how to defend your stand which is why in Master and Doctoral programs a person must defend their thesis.

Again IMHO I was shocked that Dr. King did not take a defense for the religious belief he proclaimed to have.

I am not saying, whether or not he was Saved or not, I don't know, but reading those papers Dr. King did not defend the Bible (he quoted and referenced) at all.....

I agree LANL. You hit the nail on the head and I think I've discovered why Dr. King seemed removed from Christianity and why his fervor for the faith was lacking.

If we look at it, all of those papers where written at the end of 1949 and in the early 1950's. In reading some of his other writings and public remarks, it seems Dr. King was doing what other people who are born into preachers' familes often do: He accepted what he was taught. He became religious, but he didn't have a personal relationship with God.

Here is something that is key and may explain his tone in those papers:

A critical moment arrived for him on the night of January 27, 1955 when his faith in himself and his ability to serve in his new capacity was at a low ebb. The phone rang, the latest in a series of anonymous callers to the home he shared with his wife and baby daughter. "black person, we are tired of you and your mess now. And if you aren't out of this town in three days, we're going to blow your brains out and blow up your house." As Martin Luther King recalled it later:

I got to the point that I couldn't take it any longer. I was weak. Something said to me, you can't call on Daddy now, he's up in Atlanta a hundred and seventy-five miles away. You can't even call on Mama now. You've got to call on the something in that person that your Daddy used to tell you about, that power that can make a way out of no way.

And I discovered, then, that religion had become something real to me and I had to know God for myself. And I bowed down over that cup of coffee. I will never forget it. I prayed a prayer and I prayed out loud that night. I said, "Lord, I'm down here trying to do what's right. I think I'm right. I think the cause that we represent is right. But, Lord, I must confess that I'm weak now. I'm faltering. I'm losing my courage. And I can't let the people see me like this, because if they see me weak and losing my courage, they will begin to get weak"

And it seemed, at that moment, that I could hear an inner voice saying to me, "Martin Luther, stand up for righteousness. Stand up for justice. Stand up for truth. And, lo, I will be with you, even unto the end of the world" I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. No, never alone. No, never alone. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone.

So it seems that during the time King wrote those papers, he knew of Christ, God and the bible because he had been taught them, and he could certainly talk about them.

The one missing ingredient that is evident, however, was the lack of relationship and I believe that may be the crux of what we sense in those writings.

I still wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusions that he was so inclined to profess as his own (that were not biblical) but I now know why.

Even as a twenty-something year old theology student who was becoming known around the world, and whose father, grandfather and great grandfather had all been preachers, Dr. King, at that time was without a relationship with God.

It's starting to make sense now.

[MsKayLander]

[lanl nsi]

Also YBrown, alot of children in those days (my parents /aunts and uncles were from that era and we come from a line of preachers too) were denouncing their "homegrown" beliefs to venture off into various religions.

During the civil rights era there was a broad belief that "white was right" and that the teachings of the black church were to animated for lack of a better word). The term it doesn't take all of that was prevalent back than.....

gotto go i will be back

[jasmine nsi]

I have been thinking of a way to say this without saying it how i really want to say it. And for right now, all i can come up with is this: its all irrelevant.

[lanl ns]

jasmine said:

I have been thinking of a way to say this without saying it how i really want to say it. And for right now, all i can come up with is this: its all irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant for you than that is perfectly OK, but for me i find this topic interesting as I am sure the others who posted are too.

I am that kind of person, give me something new to research and discuss than I am all on top of it. That's just my nature...............

I like to stimulate the brain sometimes with different viewpoints and thought patterns........

That's just like someone discovering that King James (who translated the Bible) cross dressed and they had document to verify that. I will look into it but that doesn't mean that I am going to jump on the bandwagon and say this person was not saved or etc.....

This topic is just food for thought and if you don't want this food than it's all good too.

[Grace]

Just by reading some of Dr. King's papers, who he belonged to certainly comes into question.

I do however keep in mind that when writing doctoral level papers (and some were written in that capacity) there are certain guideline that are to be followed when writing such papers, but some of the arguments that Dr. King presented begs the question of whether or not the man was truly a born again, bible believing Christian.

Why would I ask such a question? God is the only one beyond reproach. Everybody and everything else should be questioned if the fruit doesn't look quite right.

As a seminary student, many times we are told to write papers in a certain manner. Sometimes we may have to write a paper based on a doctrine we may not necessarily believe or rather see it the way it is presented in class, however we have to make arguements to suppor tthe view in order to graduate.

So as far as thats concerned I believe we can't question whether or not he was saved based on that. What other thngs would make one think that Rev. king was not a Christian?

I just had to write a paper that advocated the view that atonement was limited. Now in no ways do i beleive that the atonement wa limited, but th epaper had to make the case and support it.

Be mindful that in seminar the classes are not asking you to always defend Jesus some of this goes without saying, but you are at times made to take a stance and write from a stance that you do not agree with. Its school it has nothing to do with who you are necessarily as a person.

[Jasmine nsi]

If it is irrelevant for you than that is perfectly OK, but for me i find this topic interesting as I am sure the others who posted are too.

Its ok to be interested for the sake of conversation..but it's irrelevant because whether or not he was or wasn't saved or a man of God...he's dead.

I am that kind of person, give me something new to research and discuss than I am all on top of it. That's just my nature...............

again, thats all fine and dandy, im not saying end the discussion.

I like to stimulate the brain sometimes with different viewpoints and thought patterns........

Again, thats all fine, but after the views and different viewpoints...lets be realistic regarding the out come of our presumptions.

That's just like someone discovering that King James (who translated the Bible) cross dressed and they had document to verify that. I will look into it but that doesn't mean that I am going to jump on the bandwagon and say this person was not saved or etc.....

I wouldn't even go as far as to research whether or not he cross-dressed. Why? What usefulness would come out of knowing it? When a discussion about king James arise, should i be the first to raise my hand and say.."Hey Did you know He was a cross dresser".

This topic is just food for thought and if you don't want this food than it's all good too.

Absolutely true! One thing about me just in case you didn't know.. I dont digest everything..because everything is not prepared for my taste testing. I may look at it, smell it, or even poke at it, but it doesn't mean im digesting it.