|
|
Post by ybrown on Dec 7, 2005 16:36:07 GMT -5
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. When you get a chance, read the papers. I have been mindful from the beginning of how assignments are given as I've had to do the same in both undergrad and grad. I've even considered that when reading Dr. King's opinions, but when he as the author of a paper then takes on one of the opinions as his own and even says he agrees with one of the sides, then I can safely attribute that viewpoint to him. I don't doubt if Dr. King was a Christian, as over 70% of the population designates themselves as such, but my question was really about the bible-believing, born-again part, based on his own writings and his own professed opinions that seemed to call those two things into question. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Dec 7, 2005 18:03:51 GMT -5
Side Note: I would like to see your paper regarding limited atonement
One thing that really stood out to me was when one poster stated that "he died for what he believed".... When I think of Paul -- he died for the name; Steven died for the name.... but when I think of why King died, it was because he wanted equal rights for all..... just never thought about that before....
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine nsi on Dec 7, 2005 18:23:59 GMT -5
it wasn't a poster nikkol, it was the Lord.. i went and re-read over all the posts. Some of my posts attempted to make a point that he had a purpose to fulfil..but it wasn't what you mentioned just now.
It was the Lord!
|
|
|
|
Post by stillfocused on Dec 7, 2005 20:03:54 GMT -5
I agree with Jasmine..this is not important. Yet, my question is how many look at us and question our Christianity based on what they see ? We must be very careful of what we feed into; for years many have been trying to discredit Dr. King. Just maybe the answer to the many questions many have won't be found in a book or a website..just maybe the truth of the matter is in a safe place. How many of us have been 'saved all our lives' or should I rephrase been in church all our lives ? Yet, we had no relationship with Christ, because it wasn't taught that needed one.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Dec 8, 2005 0:45:44 GMT -5
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.  I'm not understanding your statement--especially since we really don't have a grasp on exactly WHAT King believed as it regarded matters of the faith. My point is that when it comes to academics, several viewpoints, philosophies, etc. are often discussed and many times, one may have to think critically about that. Facts and evidence tell us nothing in and of themselves--they much be interpreted and this is based on the context in which they are found. With this in mind, Dr. King could have very well approached various issues from this standpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Dec 8, 2005 0:47:50 GMT -5
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'm not really seeing anything anti-biblical in this quote. Can you break it down for me? |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Dec 8, 2005 0:52:34 GMT -5
I agree with Jasmine..this is not important. Yet, my question is how many look at us and question our Christianity based on what they see ? We must be very careful of what we feed into; for years many have been trying to discredit Dr. King. Just maybe the answer to the many questions many have won't be found in a book or a website..just maybe the truth of the matter is in a safe place. How many of us have been 'saved all our lives' or should I rephrase been in church all our lives ? Yet, we had no relationship with Christ, because it wasn't taught that needed one. Boy I could take this, apply it to the "mega church" phenomenon, and RUN! |
|
|
|
Post by lanl ns on Dec 8, 2005 10:05:16 GMT -5
The Theory of Evolution (organic) is a theory not a Religious belief with Historical facts and evidence. I'm not understanding your statement--especially since we really don't have a grasp on exactly WHAT King believed as it regarded matters of the faith. My point is that when it comes to academics, several viewpoints, philosophies, etc. are often discussed and many times, one may have to think critically about that. Facts and evidence tell us nothing in and of themselves--they much be interpreted and this is based on the context in which they are found. With this in mind, Dr. King could have very well approached various issues from this standpoint. KB, my statement was not that serious which is why I put the smiling faces and wink icon next to it. In an earlier post I pretty much agreed with you above reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Dec 8, 2005 13:01:11 GMT -5
it wasn't a poster nikkol, it was the Lord.. i went and re-read over all the posts. Some of my posts attempted to make a point that he had a purpose to fulfil..but it wasn't what you mentioned just now. It was the Lord! Interesting.... I was like 99% positive that I read that.....LOL |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Dec 8, 2005 19:51:01 GMT -5
My bad LANL. Classes be havin' a brotha think ERRYTHANG is serious! |
|
|
|
Post by ybrown on Dec 8, 2005 20:51:28 GMT -5
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'm not really seeing anything anti-biblical in this quote. Can you break it down for me? King's breakdown of mana isn't the unbiblical part. It's his agreement with the conclusion that both religion (incl. Christianity) and magic are similar and serve man by letting him manipulate the universe through mana. The whole mana thing is so New Age (even back then) and it deals in mysticism and the contacting of spirits. This may be the basis for Eastern religions, but it isn't the basis for Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by stillfocused1 on Dec 10, 2005 0:15:09 GMT -5
How old were those papers when Dr. King came to the forefront ? How many years had passed when he came to the realization that what he had been taught was religion; and he needed more than anything else Jesus Christ ? And I had to agree that many who enter into
Bible Colleges and seminaries are taught things that many would not agree with; and are encouraged not to speak the truth. Many don't believe in the work of the Holy Spirit and many don't believe that the gifts are available today..because they have sought the third person the trinity called the Holy Spirit.
|
|
