# Guess who said this about Christ's deity.



## john_Mark (Jan 13, 2005)

"So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. "

See if you can guess correctly, then click here for the answer.

I wonder if this person held this position his whole life? Interesting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2005)

I am sure he held it his whole academic life. He was heavily influenced by Paul Tillich (cf. his dissertation) and was neo-orthodox to the core.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 13, 2005)

Interesting. I knew he leaned liberal in some things. I didn't know he went that far.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2005)

This documentation is very helpful when dealing with those who call him a Christian. I appreciate the tip; it will be useful in that regard.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 13, 2005)

Wow!


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 13, 2005)

My Grandmother who was one of the saintliest women i have ever known, always refused to call him a Christian. I always wrote that off as her being from Atlanta.


----------



## Charismatic Calvinist (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> "So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. "
> 
> See if you can guess correctly...



Oh this is easy...my Dad & step family are Mormons. Joseph Smith! Joseph Smith!


----------



## Charismatic Calvinist (Jan 13, 2005)

Disgusted & appalled...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 13, 2005)

Wow.

Guess that confirms that.  I knew he denied the literalness of Gen. 1-10....but I didn't know this.


You'd think that if he DID change his mind, somewhere in his writings, he'd have a retractation.... ?


----------



## Authorised (Jan 13, 2005)

The link isn't working, could someone U2U the answer?


----------



## turmeric (Jan 13, 2005)

I knew it!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 13, 2005)

Well its a good thing I dont celebrate his day. Amazing how much we dont know in all the things americans me one of them take for granted. I would have never known this I only knew he was a baptist9which is bad enough) jk lol had to say it 

blade


----------



## Ivan (Jan 13, 2005)

How timely! A good reminder that it's not wise to follow someone just because there is a day dedicated to him. 

King was extremely liberal. I don't know if I'd called him merely neo-orthodox. I respect the idea of equality, but there must be someone better to follow....hmmm...Jesus?....Paul?....


----------



## openairboy (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> "So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. "
> 
> See if you can guess correctly, then click here for the answer.
> ...



Holy Cow! That is absolutely unbelievable! I guess it is no big deal that liberal revisionist seek to make him a non-Christian and turn him into an ideal humanist. He really was!

I always heard he was a commie and wasn't real faithful to his wife, but this is a whole other realm

"Who do you say I am?" I think it is safe to say that this was not revealed to him.

openairboy


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> Holy Cow! That is absolutely unbelievable!



Actually it is old news. We have ignored the elephant in the living room for a long time.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by openairboy_
> ...



Indeed old news. I read about all of this at least in the mid-80's. Haven't paid any attention to that day in January since.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2005)

While I agree that this paper is theological liberal trash, it was written in 1950 when King was a student. Does anyone know of anything later that confirms this?


----------



## LauridsenL (Jan 13, 2005)

And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.


----------



## Ranger (Jan 13, 2005)

"This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation."

Now that's just plain scary theology.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LauridsenL_
> And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.



It was not just liberal churches. Conservative churches were there as well. Just because King was a liberal, doens't mean all the civil rights folk were liberals. There's alot of "unknown" people from that time, local leaders and laymen, who recognized the truth in Scripture that we are all one people descended from Adam and that Christ has no room for racism, who recieve no credit for their willingness to love those who hate them, and bless those who persecute them. That is one thing I do value of King. He preached that they are to win through loving their enemies, not through violence. You won't hear that from most "popular" civil rights leaders today.


----------



## john_Mark (Jan 13, 2005)

I wish I knew if he'd ever retracted or should I say repented of his above writings. I can't seem to find anything on the web in the quick searches I have had time to do. Maybe the problem is that many don't know his theology, don't care so there isn't much written about it either criticizing or showing a retraction.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> You'd think that if he DID change his mind, somewhere in his writings, he'd have a retractation.... ?


I've got a collection of his writings. I don't think there is a lot of theological writings though. It's more polemical and political speeches. I'll take a look tonight though and see.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LauridsenL_
> And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.



 

Sometimes I question the authenticity of statements thrown by the side of the road which exalt Paul's theology in Romans, but ignore or only give lip-service to his theology in Philemon. The AME Church didn't develop because people had problems with Calvinism.....

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2005)

> That is one thing I do value of King. He preached that they are to win through loving their enemies, not through violence. You won't hear that from most "popular" civil rights leaders today.



As much as I hate neo-orthodoxy that much is true. I do give him credit on that.



> And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.



While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by openairboy_
> ...



What Elephant?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2005)

I like the holiday. My kids and I get to play.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> [
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, denying someone the "right to vote" is hardly a damnable heresy, but a "right" of the American system. These Christians are readily frowned upon in the church and culturally. The PCA even had a statement on reconciliation and repentance, but no matter what is done people aren't willing to forgive. Will people ever forgive those sins? No, because they are necessary politically. I can only imagine what future generations will say about us, because of our blindness to cultural sins.

openairboy

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by openairboy]

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## LauridsenL (Jan 14, 2005)

> While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.



I agree wholeheartedly. I wasn't defending his clear denial of the Deity of Christ, and hope that God later in life granted him repentance.


----------



## LauridsenL (Jan 14, 2005)

> Just because King was a liberal, doens't mean all the civil rights folk were liberals.



That's certainly true. But not as true as it should've been.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 14, 2005)

Jacob - it's easy to say that "While that might be true it doesn't justify a denial of the Deity of Christ.", but fact is..... a group of 'so-called Christians' calling me 3/5 of a person, spitting on me, telling me I'm under the imaginary curse of Ham and other racist nonsense that ran under the guise of Christianity it's Christological orthodoxy is a lot more real at THAT particular time than some abstract concept of the Deity of Christ and whether or not I hold to it. And having never been on the side of the oppressed or the discriminated against, you can't identify with how deeply it touches and pains the souls of them who endure it. There are still people alive today who in the 1950's would've been told 'We don't allow <the N word> in our church' at the front door of a PCA church that solidly held to the WCF. And one simply 'racial reconciliation' speech or declaration doesn't make that go away when it's been the majority of your life. (thankfully, the PCA *is* doing something more now....)

The late Walter Martin had a saying: "Cults are the unpaid bills of the church come due." Reformed theology has not been present for the most part in the African-American community due to the fact that most of the reformed folk either were indifferent to racism and discrimination and oppression or complicit in it. That's historical fact. Meanwhile, Arminian folk were more than happy to take in, defend and even to die for the freedom of African-Americans. Liberal denoms, with the whole 'social gospel' mentality, jumped even further ahead in the 30's, 40's and 50's and especially in the 60's.... and to the shame of most, did a better job of loving their brothers than their reformed counterparts did. And that 'realness' that's supposed to be the hallmark of true Christianity....came from a mixed and in some cases, heretical brand of Christianity... but it did its' job and drew more people in.....

I'm not saying these things to criticize you (because I know we've had our disagreements in the past on here), but just to give you another perspective. I hope I come across humble and non-accusatory and if I don't, I apologize and ask you to forgive me in advance.



[Edited on 14-1-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> a group of 'so-called Christians' calling me 3/5 of a person, spitting on me, telling me I'm under the imaginary curse of Ham and other racist nonsense that ran under the guise of Christianity it's Christological orthodoxy is a lot more real at THAT particular time than some abstract concept of the Deity of Christ and whether or not I hold to it.



While I of course can't fully understand, and don't want to downplay, the racism you're talking about, I must take you up on this point. Personal persecution such as that, very important as it is, is _never_ as dangerous and truly problematic as such a misconstrued concept of the deity of Christ...what is represented by King's statement is not merely some error in understanding on unconditional election or God's providence - it is a _damnable_ heresy, and a total destruction of the very heart of Christianity. So while I do sympathize with the importance of the great extent of a problem that the racism of many of the conservative churches during that time was, earthly oppression such as that is simply _never_ as dangerous, under _any_ circumstance, as the eternally soul-damning heresy represented by King's words.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2005)

Kerry,
We have disagreed in the past and I am trying not to keep that in mind as I view this thread. I value what you have to say--I visited your website tonight and found it enjoyable with many valuable insights to offer. I understand what you are getting at. I realize that liberals rallied to causes that White, Southern Calvinists shunned. I have to say that with regret. That is why this is a two-front issue--I can not jusfity calling someone 3/5 of a human. On the other hand I cannot pretent that liberalism in general (forget King for a second. Let us assume he repented of intellectuall autonomy)is a Christiian perspective. It is no accident that Gresham Machen titled his book _Christianity and Liberalism_.

Would it interest you to know that I had waited quite a while for Anthony Carter's book to come out? I can remember the day that I saw _Being Black and Reformed_ in the bookstore. I like what Anthony had to say and must admit it to be a challenging little book. I have also listened to his sermons from Piper's Conference. 

While we will still disagree on some major historical issues, I hope this cleared up some misunderstanding and that there are no hard feelings between us.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Would it interest you to know that I had waited quite a while for Anthony Carter's book to come out? I can remember the day that I saw _Being Black and Reformed_ in the bookstore. I like what Anthony had to say and must admit it to be a challenging little book. I have also listened to his sermons from Piper's Conference.



I have that book, but as of yet have only read bits and pieces. Would you say that book has a thesis, or is it more of a composition of various thoughts on the subject?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2005)

It has been almost a year since I read it (and I read it in a chaotic dormitory environment) but I'll try.

Carter gives a very nice of overview of Reformed theology and presents it as THE viable alternative--my words, not his--as opposed to Liberation theology or arminianism; in fact, he is critical of Cone, etc. It is basic but good. He attempts to show that the black perspective (and struggle in history) should suit them to Reformed theology and when that has not been the case, both blacks and whites are to blame. It is a short book (and not expensive at all, maybe 8 or 9 dollars).


----------



## turmeric (Jan 14, 2005)

I'm curious - why did this come up just now? I can't think it's coincidence. What point are we trying to make here - this day is being celebrated because MLK pulled people together and reminded us what the United States is about - it's not being celebrated to honor his theology. Most people don't even know what his theology was. This is a national, not a religious, holiday. It almost seems like someone is trying to rain on someone else's parade. BTW I'm white.

(This post is not directed at anyone in particular, it just seems that the discussion is missing the point of why the holiday is celebrated. It's interesting and sad that MLK was not apparently a Christian (unless he changed).)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2005)

BTW,
I enjoy the holiday


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I'm curious - why did this come up just now? I can't think it's coincidence. What point are we trying to make here - this day is being celebrated because MLK pulled people together and reminded us what the United States is about - it's not being celebrated to honor his theology. Most people don't even know what his theology was. This is a national, not a religious, holiday. It almost seems like someone is trying to rain on someone else's parade. BTW I'm white.
> 
> (This post is not directed at anyone in particular, it just seems that the discussion is missing the point of why the holiday is celebrated. It's interesting and sad that MLK was not apparently a Christian (unless he changed).)
> ...



This Thread was in response to an article that Dr.MLK denies the Diety of Christ. Which is enlightening in the fact that he was suppose to be a Pastor. One who fed the flock of God. He is lifted up by many as being a defender of the faith. In reality he wasn't. This doesn't take away the fact that he was a catalyst to move the civil rights movement forward. The article wasn't about the holiday per se.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

If you asked me whether "he" was a Christian, I would have said, "No idea." That clinches it though. He was an Arian at best.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 14, 2005)

so i guess this means that I should get rid of my book "Thank You, Dr Martin Luther King" that I saved for when my children get older (kiddy book)? LOL...me, trying to trash a book haha....(no, no, it's a book, you can't! I have to, but....)


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Indeed old news. I read about all of this at least in the mid-80's. Haven't paid any attention to that day in January since.



I do, but mostly because my birthday falls on the 17th.

(That's right, you just witnessed an irrelevant and shameless plug for Evie's 21st birthday!)

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ivan_
> ...



Happy birthday, Evie! Cheers!


----------



## JohnV (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LauridsenL_
> And, sadly, many from that era who knew enough at least to say with their lips that Jesus is God also thought nothing of denying the right to vote, employment, or a decent school to people who happened to have a different color skin. I wonder how many of us grieve over the fact that so many professing believers engaged in blatant hatred, leaving it to the "liberal" church to work to end the injustice of segregation.



I remember that this was one of the charges that Dr. F. A. Schaeffer made in his book, The God Who Is There, or at least that's how I took it when I first read his book. Some years later I reread his book with the intention of getting to the root of what this babbler had to say. After I did reread the book I came away with a totally different impression. I came to understand that the precurser of a liberal church is one that is dead in orthodoxy. They may have all the right doctrines, but have no heart for the truth of it. The conservative, but dead church is the direct parent of the liberal one.

These "orthodox, but dead" (so called according to Schaeffer) were threatened by the change, and so worked to "conserve" their perceived heritage. In the Seventies, this ended up creating a "conservative" element in the church that was as wrong, if not more so, than the liberals. But the liberals also took advantage of it, and used it to trap a lot of truly orthodox people into a polemic to which they really had no attachment. In fighting against "liberalism" some embraced "conservatism" as if it was the same as orthodoxy, manipulated by some liberals. 

That's how it was in my circle. The "conservative" church I belonged to wanted the maintenance of the status quo no more than the liberals. But they became more adamant about the subtle attacks on theology than they were about the true impetus behind these attacks. Did anyone really care whether or not women would be allowed into office? Sure, there were a few, but that was not the game that was being played. The real push was to undermine the perspicuity of Scripture, so that any text at all, eventually, would and could be called into question; or at the very least have only a basis in personal interpretation only. The authority of Scripture was the real goal, to remove that unhindered and stand-alone authority and place it squarely into the hands of men. It became so common to refer to one's own interpretation of the Bible, and to put all ecclesiastical authority on the shelf. A person became his own authority on what the Word said to him. 

So in a way I agree with Lee, but it is still also true that there were some people like Dr. Schaeffer who were orthodox and were movers. They were keenly aware of the hurt that careless "church people" caused by their self-interests. But it is wrong to divide the people into "liberal" and "coservative" camps, when the real problem was whether or not any one of them were really Christian at all in their sense of responsibility to the Word as well as to their immediate Christian community, and also to those to whom they were to represent the salvation in Christ.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 14, 2005)

No hard feelings at all, Jacob. I actually value a lot of what you have to say on here. And your synopsis of Anthony Carter's book is dead on, in my opinion. I like his book and I actually gave mine to my pastor (who is a regular ol' dispensationalist/4-pointer, which is really not a 4-pointer once you understand what universal atonement does to the gospel....). I think he likes puritan spirituality.

But moving on... Chris, I view it from this point: The most important commandment is to love YHWH with all our strength, heart and mind... but Jesus didn't stop there. The second command is _like_ the first command - love your neighbor as you would love yourself. Holding, defending and teaching right doctrine on the Deity of Christ IS a form of obedience to the first commandment. Likewise, loving your neighbor as yourself condemns American/European slavery and discrimination/racism. So while I would put it up as being secondarily important, it IS, nonetheless, near the same level of importance (since Jesus Himself put it there).

What I was getting at was that a person in the midst of being discriminated against could care less *at that moment* about whether or not a church or individuals hold to a creed or confession. They care, instead, about their physical and emotional needs right then and there. Which would be your priority if you were in Indonesia at the time the tsunami impacted - correcting someone's viewpoint about the trinity or rescuing them from the torrent of water washing inland so that they'll be alive to hear the gospel ?

I'm not downplaying the importance of correct doctrine, especially on this point (since it does attack the heart of the Christian faith directly). I'm simply stating that everyone, in light of situations and circumstances, doesn't always place the priority on doctrine when it comes to fellowship. 

I *am* curious as to whether or not King changed his views later in life. I posted this quote without reference on another board I frequent and so far, one person (a believer) HAS figured out it was King and intimates that King may have changed his mind later in life (I'll have to check with him, since he's more of King expert than me). I may be wrong.


----------



## john_Mark (Jan 14, 2005)

*Reply to turmeric*

Since I am the one who started the post I will tell you my "motives". I have a friend in Texas who called me yesterday which was two days after he met with his pastor to express concerns over using Rick Warren's material. I told him something that he was unaware of, the Warren had learned some of his methods, etc. from Robert Schuller. So will sitting at my desk I did a search to share some quotes with him. I found this website: http://www.myfortress.org/RickWarren.html Afterwards I started looking around the site and I came upon this section about MLK, Jr. saying things about the man that I had never heard before. My interest was piqued and I figured that I would share it with the PB so we what kind of feedback I'd get. 

That's it. No motive, I just happened to find the information. The only thing I had in mind yesterday about MLK was that I was getting Monday off and I had just told my friend that very thing since he is visiting me Monday.

I just wanted to clarify so that I wasn't accussed of anything and this was strictly about King's theology and orthodoxy, hence his Christianity.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Since I am the one who started the post I will tell you my "motives". I have a friend in Texas who called me yesterday which was two days after he met with his pastor to express concerns over using Rick Warren's material. I told him something that he was unaware of, the Warren had learned some of his methods, etc. from Robert Schuller. So will sitting at my desk I did a search to share some quotes with him. I found this website: http://www.myfortress.org/RickWarren.html Afterwards I started looking around the site and I came upon this section about MLK, Jr.
> saying things about the man that I had never heard before. My interest was piqued and I figured that I would share it with the PB so we what kind of feedback I'd get.
> 
> ...



John Mark, please accept my apologies for insinuating something which is not true of you. My concern stems from what I was hearing on this thread which sounded to me something like this

A. MLK backs racial equality
B But he does not believe in the deity of Christ
Therefore; he's wrong about everything, and I'm not celebrating MLK Day.

BTW I don't celebrate it either, except by taking the day off.
Again, I apologize.


----------



## john_Mark (Jan 15, 2005)

Thanks for the apology. I know it may have looked suspicious and I wasn't sure exactly where you were coming from. MLK did do alot of great social work and is to be commended for it. I am very skeptical now though since I have found out what his theology was atleast during an early part of his life. A part of his life during which he was preaching no less. I have heard other stories of him in that he was definately a sinner and did things that ministers should not do and be able to remain a minister. 

I am sorry for any misunderstandings also. Thanks again.

(the hand shake emoticon isn't working for me) :bigsmile:


----------



## strictestsect (Jan 16, 2005)

This reminds me"¦
Should I not glean from a prominent, white bible teacher in California knowing he has expressed in private that he does not "œunderstand blacks"? He´s an excellent theolog however"¦


----------



## Ivan (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by strictestsect_
> This reminds me"¦
> Should I not glean from a prominent, white bible teacher in California knowing he has expressed in private that he does not "œunderstand blacks"? He´s an excellent theolog however"¦



Depends on what he means by not understanding blacks. That would be a red flag for me. 

Prominent? That's interesting. 

Keep an critical eye on his teaching and his conduct of life. If he shows disrespect from another race, he is dishonoring God. We are ALL made in the image of God PERIOD!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 16, 2005)

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a mixed bag. 

I do not believe that he was a true man of God or that he believed the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The quote cited in this thread is evidence in that regard.

His approach to civil disobedience comes from Gandhi, not the Scriptures (which is not to say there is not a Biblical approach to civil disobedience). 

He was a womanizer (see _And the Walls Came Tumbling Down_ by Ralph Abernathy (1989)), a plagiarizer (see http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1021) and a Communist sympathizer (see http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html). 

I think the reason why we have a holiday in his honor is merely because of the political correctness that is pervasive in our society. This country has had many great and honorable Christians in the past who are not honored with federal holidays on their birthdays. 

But I would like to highlight King's "I have a dream" speech for consideration. When he talks about dreaming of a day when Protestant and Catholic children can join hands and sing hymns together, I am not clapping my hands. It shows clear lack of spiritual discernment on his part. But although I disagree with his methods and his movement, I do not dispute that he fought racism, which is evil. Therefore when he says: 



> *I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. *
> 
> I have a dream that ... little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
> 
> This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.



I could not agree more.  

http://www.mecca.org/~crights/dream.html

[Edited on 16-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## openairboy (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by strictestsect_
> This reminds me"¦
> Should I not glean from a prominent, white bible teacher in California knowing he has expressed in private that he does not "œunderstand blacks"? He´s an excellent theolog however"¦



It all depends on what he means by "understand blacks." I don't think that is too much to worry about. I don't understand whites, women, teenagers, Moslems, or my own heart, and I'm a really good theologian and you can be sure that you can glean and glean from me.

openairboy


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 16, 2005)

Anthony Carter visited our church about 2 months ago.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'm not celebrating. No one celebrates Columbus day anymore. Italians are made fun of. Everyone wants our food but no one wants to give us a day off. S I'm not celebrating anyones day or birthday until Columbus gets put back in the mix!!


----------



## turmeric (Jan 16, 2005)

Oops, sorry!

[Edited on 16-1-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## Ivan (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_ I don't think that is too much to worry about. I don't understand whites, women, teenagers, Moslems, or my own heart...



Excellent point.


----------



## strictestsect (Jan 16, 2005)

I think that there´s a slight difference in the way you don´t "œunderstand" women, etc"¦as opposed to the case with this bible teacher and his "œhang ups""¦ 

I´m black and it does not bother me to know this about him. I have been to his church and would tell any serious student of the word to make the trip to the services there.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> what abput the Italians. Everyone has hangups about them. Everyone assumes you're gonna mug them! Or they always tell you, "fuhgetaboutit" and then laugh. Or they call you "Tony Soprano." Or when they want you to do something they say, "I'll give you an offer you can't refuse."



Hey! Yah, it's better than what they say about us Norwegian Americans, don't ya know. :bigsmile:


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> what abput the Italians. Everyone has hangups about them. Everyone assumes you're gonna mug them! Or they always tell you, "fuhgetaboutit" and then laugh. Or they call you "Tony Soprano." Or when they want you to do something they say, "I'll give you an offer you can't refuse."



Being 1/4 Italiano myself, I concur.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 17, 2005)

Vikings dicovered america not catholic pretty boy columbus:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


But we do have a football team !!!


----------



## Peter (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Uff da!


----------



## strictestsect (Jan 17, 2005)

Right...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 17, 2005)

@ the direction of this whole thread.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 17, 2005)

Paul isnt Italy a papal state


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> are you implying that there's a christian state somewhere? I wouldn't be to proud of people who believed in gods like Thor and Oden



Now Paul, they're all Lutheran now, don't ya know. Lutefisk will do that to ya everytime.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 17, 2005)

Does anyone know if MLK was post-mill?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 18, 2005)

Lutheran is better than papal state


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 18, 2005)

Isnt Italys heel thats going to be bruised?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Blade, since you live in Washington, and there's a lot of fog out there, do you shoot flamming arrows into the fog before you enter it while shouting "ooooodeeeennn"



No, we only do that at the Sons of Norway picnics :bigsmile:


----------



## hehegirl89 (Jan 22, 2005)

instead of celebrating martin luther king jr day, let's all celebrate robert e lee's birthday (jan. 19)


----------



## strictestsect (Jan 23, 2005)

Wow...


----------



## turmeric (Jan 23, 2005)

If I coulda got the day off...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Blade, since you live in Washington, and there's a lot of fog out there, do you shoot flamming arrows into the fog before you enter it while shouting "ooooodeeeennn"



Although the 13th Warrior wasn't a great movie, that was an awesome scene. I will do that the next time I am in a boat. It reminds me of a CS Lewis quote, "Pierced...by beauty...'Northerness' engulfed me."


----------



## lwadkins (Jan 23, 2005)

My Grandparents came here from Denmark. I want to know why I have to be lumped in with the italians just because I'm white...


----------



## govols (Jan 24, 2005)

Someone just needs to shut this thread down.

MLK didn't have anything to do with the Colts, Italy, Denmark, etc... I don't reckon he did?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2005)

Blade,
Are you of Nordic descent, thus Paul's comments?


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jan 25, 2005)

Curious. Could have also come from Jesse Jackson, considering how he uses Scripture to justify his means. Neither men appeared to have rightly divided the Word of Truth.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by hehegirl89_
> instead of celebrating martin luther king jr day, let's all celebrate robert e lee's birthday (jan. 19)



Here in Virginia we celebrate Lee-Jackson Day (January 16 this year). Here is the Governor's proclamation (he is a Democrat, btw): 

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Proclamations/2004/Lee-Jackson.htm


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 8, 2005)

that ain't new. There's a book by James Cone, where he said that Martin Luther King denied the Virgin Birth and the Inerrancy of Scripture. The Book of Martin and Malcom a dream or a nightmare.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Slippery]


----------

