When will Christians quit getting pushed around

[talloulou]

I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes

It should be noted though that if you read through King's writings and speeches you will find that he was for all intense and purposes a man devoted to God and a social cause but not a man who took the Bible as literally God's word. Not even close, actually. He could rightly be called a heretic as most great men are. :mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

good article on previous point:

Writings show King as liberal Christian, rejecting literalism

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Who actually does?

but not a man who took the Bible as literally God's word.

Who does? Next to the Phelps family that is. You can't be a literalist without being really OLD TESTAMENT.

 

[Felicity]

Fine. We need a huffy smilie.

Thanks. I like to use this one when I'm feeling huffy: :moody

jfuh brought up the evils done by Christians. Fine. Gunny countered with MLK. Okay. Either good and evil is done in the name of Christianity OR people who happen to be Christian do good and evil things. You can't pick or choose. You can't make it good things in the name of Christianity while bad deeds are done by people that just happen to be Christian.

Ok...If I'm gettin' your point correctly, one COULD say, people do good and bad things in the name of Christianity, AND people do good and bad things despite being Christian or not...Correct?

Whether MLK was following God's word is really secondary to this point

Still...it's kinda fun to be a stickler sometimes!:2razz:

 

[Felicity]

The OT has almost nothing to do with Christianity. The NT does.
If you compare the God of the OT, to the one of the NT, they seem like different beings altogether....That was what Marcion taught, and the Catholic church had a hissy fit about it..

It's ONE God...That's what the Church "had a hissy" about. We may interpret his movements differently, but God is immutable--OT to NT: same God...different people. His Covenant with mankind changed, however, and Jesus was the Word of the New Covenant.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

How can there be more than one covenant!?!

Still...it's kinda fun to be a stickler sometimes!:2razz:

Isn't that why we like you?

 

[Felicity]

Re: How can there be more than one covenant!?!

Isn't that why we like you?

You're a majority of one! :mrgreen:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Is my love not enough?

You're a majority of one! :mrgreen:

Its a good thing that my ego fills rooms then

 

[Felicity]

Re: Is my love not enough?

Its a good thing that my ego fills rooms then

...and that's why we like you!

 

[Kelzie]

Thanks. I like to use this one when I'm feeling huffy: :moody

Wonderful. Thanks for finding it.

Ok...If I'm gettin' your point correctly, one COULD say, people do good and bad things in the name of Christianity, AND people do good and bad things despite being Christian or not...Correct?

Yes. But what Gunny is saying is that people do good things in the name of Christianity but people who do bad things just happen to be Christian. He divorces the religious backing when it's a bad action. jfuh is doing the exact opposite. And they're both incorrect.

Still...it's kinda fun to be a stickler sometimes!:2razz:

Yeah it's just more fun when I'm the stickler. :lol:

 

[Felicity]

Wonderful. Thanks for finding it.



Yes. But what Gunny is saying is that people do good things in the name of Christianity but people who do bad things just happen to be Christian. He divorces the religious backing when it's a bad action. jfuh is doing the exact opposite. And they're both incorrect.

Well...I think jfuh is always full of the brown stuff, but Gunny...is that really what you are saying, or is there a miscommunication there? (geez, I feel like a marriage counselor :lol

 

[MSgt]

Actually, I'm saying both you and jfuh are wrong. I have said since the beginning of this debate that either Christianity is responsible for both evil and good or people who happen to be Christian do both evil and good. You can't have it one way like both you and jfuh seem to want.

Actually, you are now stating what I was stating before you jumped in on the Jfuh defense. I believe that religion is defined by the creators. And that men have either acted accordingly or have not acted accordingly. I have also stated that a person can't blame an evil man for his religious background and absolve a good man of his. I, in no way, ever stated that this is a one way street. In fact....

Post 65 ~ 4 days ago...

"His Civil Rights movement wasn't about Christianity. It was about equality and Civil Rights. But there is no way anybody can strip his Christian upbringing away nor his Christian preacher roots throughout his career". - GySgt.

Post 88 ~ 2 days ago...

"You find great comfort in pointing out the religion of evil men, but "forgive" those good men of theirs as you set theirs aside as non-significant?" - GySgt.

Post 193 ~ 1.5 hours ago...

"In Jfuh's haste to point out Christianity and it's depravity upon mankind, I merely pointed out the great social advancments that came from Christians as well. He defended by seperating Christianity from the man. Then you jumped in and did the same." - GySgt

Post 202 ~ 1 hour ago...

"They were all inspired by life experience and religious background. You cannot seperate the two." - GySgt

Post 268 ~ Few minutes ago...

"People can't have it both ways." - GySgt.

As you should be able to clearly see, I have been arguing against the fact that people see the religion in people only when evil is conducted. Do people critics reflect on Mother Teresa as a good Christian woman or a good woman? Do they reflect on Martin Luthor (the name sake) as an evil man or a Christian fanatic lunatic? The critics only want to see a good woman in Theresa and a Christian fanatic in Martin Luthor.

Maybe because his religion had nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement?

With all the overwhleming number of people that were being oppressed and slighted by society, the odds that the leader and inspirational speaker for Civil Rights would be a Baptist Minister are astronomical, wouldn't you think? Just earlier you were all about Joan of Arc battling the odds with divine inspiration, but MLK gets no consideration at all? This is exactly what I was arguing with Jfuh, except he would never give divine possibilities to Joan. He would be consistant with where he views Christianity as defined....squarely on the shoulders of only evil men.

Prove it. He never once referenced god as the justification for equality. The Civil Rights movement was in no way, shape, or form a Christian movement. And quite honestly the fact that you're trying to twist it around to support your point is wrong.

And here you go arguing what isn't being argued. I say again...."The Civil Rights Movement was not a Chrisitian movement. However, the leader was a Christian minister who was inspired by his upbringing and his church leadership style.

"Prove it?" Must everything be "proved" to you? How about this....

King was instrumental in the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957, a group created to harness the moral authority and organizing power of black churches to conduct non-violent protests in the service of civil rights reform.

If his Christian background had nothing to do with his march, then why enlist Christian churches to harness a moral authority? How about this.....

Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech (I Have a Dream) resembles the style of a Black Baptist sermon. It appeals to such iconic and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the United States Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.

Certainly a man who used the Constitution and the Declaration, Emancipation Proclamation to justify equality did so also with the Bible. Or was the Bible a reference that wasn't supposed to justify equality like others were?

By who? Not by me. As I've said, why don't you go debate one of them, since you're obviously not debating my points.

your points are mere mirrors of my points. You're just argumentative and can't see that I am merely defending Jfuh's notion that religion can only be attributed to evil men. His argument was that MLK's good works was because he was black. But if he ordered violence while waving that Bible, Jfuh would have plenty to say about his Christianity. Is this your take too or do you still wish to create an argument where there is none?

 

[talloulou]

Well...I think jfuh is always full of the brown stuff, but Gunny...is that really what you are saying, or is there a miscommunication there? (geez, I feel like a marriage counselor :lol

Maybe they like to argue? Given the silliness of the topic I prefer to think there are steamy sexual undertones. Too bad it's not tv then we could see the chemistry as they bicker about nothing.:mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

Actually, you are now stating what I was stating before you jumped in on the Jfuh defense. I believe that religion is defined by the creators. And that men have either acted accordingly or have not acted accordingly. I have also stated that a person can't blame an evil man for his religious background and absolve a good man of his. I, in no way, ever stated that this is a one way street. In fact....

AHHHHHhhhh...My husband and I do this all the time. Fight about crap, only to realize we're both saying the same damn thing! (I just always say it way better than he could ever say it!)....(and the wise man agrees with that. and then tells me how pretty I am and how lucky he is!)


(see talloulou's post above...)

 

[Thorgasm]

So let me get this straight. Joan of Arc killed Martin Luther which in turn caused MLK to make it possible for Joan Jett and the Blackhearts to have a number one hit in the 80's?

 

[jfuh]

The "root of good?" This is what I stated? I merely stated that he was one of those Christians that are chastized for keeping society down. People find it uncomfortable when faced with this fact, because it disrupts their religion bashing needs. Slavery is not a product of religion. Unless you wixh to accuse every slave oiwner of Christianity. The world is full of athiests and even they owned slaves or hold prejudice outlooks. If God is supposed to be blamed for the religious man's prejudices, then who is responsible for the athiests?

Yourself and Kelzie are striving to find a way to dismiss his upbringing and to shove his religion into insignificance. I dare say you would be doing this if MLK was evil.

It has been your argument that MLK lead the civil rights movement because he was a Christian.

Originally Posted by GySgt
Yeah. Those Christians are ridiculous. Especially that Martin Luther King Jr. fella. I don't know why he felt that he was getting pushed around. Then he turned around and pushed his Bible into the mainstream of politics demanding Christian values. Christians seem to always be preaching about unborn babies and civil rights.

Yeah, life would be better without their lot.

It has been my argument and that of many others that irregardless of his religion MLK would've stood up and protested for civil rights like Malcom X because he was a minority, more specifically because he was a black man.
You wish to attribute it all to his religious faith which for whatever roll it may have played was not as major a contributing factor as the fact that he was a black man. MLK and Malcom X a christian and a muslim fighting for the same thing, equality. That in itself should tell you that it was not because of his faith that he was fighting for equality. Just as what you've edited out of your response in questioning me whether or not I believed OBL would be a terrorist if it he were not a muslim and I answered yes. Religion is just a tool for OBL.
Just as religion was a tool for MLK and Malcom X to connect with many of their followers. So sorry again, your example is moot.

And? Considering that it doesn't matter what the religion and what the creed, the common factor involved in all depravity is "man." Certainly any intelligent individual can find great fault between the example of Jesus and man's distortion on how to honor it.

It would be far more accurate to declare Christians at fault than to claim Christianity at fault. Any one who is familiar with the life of Jesus has the ability to judge whether or not a Christian's behavior is in accordance to the example.

What the hell does this have anything to do with anything. Read the thread topic it seems that YOU are the one attempting to turn this into something that it is not. Read the OP and then respond just what is your beef?

I don't think so. I think this is just uncomfortable. When you think of Christianity do you think of McVeigh, Pat Roberts, Crusades, inquisition? or do you think of the wealth in the tithing plates that go to the communities and abroad, the Mother Teresa's, the overwhleming unrecorded good will, Buddhist philosophies, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc.?

You can answer your own question here about prejudice.

Actually when I think of christianity I think mostly of my catholic up-brining. I think of neither of those that you listed but rather of Jesus' philosophy minus any of the devinity hocus pocus superstions. So as you were about prejudices?

 

[Joe Hill]

It has been your argument that MLK lead the civil rights movement because he was a Christian.

It has been my argument and that of many others that irregardless of his religion MLK would've stood up and protested for civil rights like Malcom X because he was a minority, more specifically because he was a black man.
You wish to attribute it all to his religious faith which for whatever roll it may have played was not as major a contributing factor as the fact that he was a black man. MLK and Malcom X a christian and a muslim fighting for the same thing, equality. That in itself should tell you that it was not because of his faith that he was fighting for equality. Just as what you've edited out of your response in questioning me whether or not I believed OBL would be a terrorist if it he were not a muslim and I answered yes. Religion is just a tool for OBL.
Just as religion was a tool for MLK and Malcom X to connect with many of their followers. So sorry again, your example is moot.

What the hell does this have anything to do with anything. Read the thread topic it seems that YOU are the one attempting to turn this into something that it is not. Read the OP and then respond just what is your beef?

Actually when I think of christianity I think mostly of my catholic up-brining. I think of neither of those that you listed but rather of Jesus' philosophy minus any of the devinity hocus pocus superstions. So as you were about prejudices?

Republican and Christian have become mutually exclusive terms. Indeed, the GOP fits the pharisees and saducees so perfectlly in their arrogant and shameless hypocrisy that few need comment upon this fact. Suffice it to point out where the US Fundamentalist-hypocrite Idiots have exposed themselves so blatantly as the true life and teachings of the "LIBERAL" Jesus of Nazareth:

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the beatitudes, be posted anywhere. . .Kurt Vonnegut

 

[MSgt]

The OT has almost nothing to do with Christianity. The NT does.
If you compare the God of the OT, to the one of the NT, they seem like different beings altogether....That was what Marcion taught, and the Catholic church had a hissy fit about it..

I try to tell people this all the time. It absolutely amazes me how people have accepted this notion that Exodus or Psalms had something to do with the Christian movement. Even other Christians have this backwards. But somehow, it is widely accepted that Islam began with Muhammed. Even though they share the Abrahamic root, everyone acknoweldges and accepts that Islam began with Muhammed. Why then is it so hard for people to understand that the Christian movement began with Jesus? I have theories...

1) The Catholic Church needed the OT, but also needed to please the Christian movement at the time.

2) Critics find it easier to bash Christianity if they can tie it all to the brutal scriptures that came before the movement began.

3) Christians have been conditioned to accept that just because the roots of the Christian God go back to Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. that everything in the OT must apply.

4) Tyrants have every justification they could ever need in the OT (part of that Catholic Church need as well).

For Muslims, history began with Muhammed. There are next to no texts recording history before the Qu'ran in the Arab world. They accept that Abraham followed God (Allah), but for them it really began with Muhammed. I just don't get how people in the West have comfortably gone on and pretended that the Christian movement began with Adam and Eve.

 

[MSgt]

It has been your argument that MLK lead the civil rights movement because he was a Christian.

Negative. It wasn't beacuse he was a Chrisitan. And I have stated this enough times for you and Kelzie to stop this charade. My posts are plain as day and here for all to read. I merely mentioned that he was a Christian. It's you that seeks to strip this away, because it doesn't allow you your views on Christianity. If the Christian movemernt stagnates society then why did a Christian lead the Civil Rights movement? If Christians do the pushing in society as you stated, then what does this mean about the society that pushed MLK during the Civil Rights Movment?

The above was exactly my argument against the Chrisatian bashers and so far no one has offered any kind of answer except for to strip the man of his religion.

 

[Felicity]

Sorry Gunny, but your post above demonstrates a very limited understanding of Christian theology as it relates to the historical foundations of the faith. However, from the "way" you say it, I'm not sure that you really care to understand how the NT is the fulfilment of the OT per Christian theology or that one God, who is the same now as He has always been and will always be is the foundation of all Abrahamic religions. Of course human pride will twist the truth of God and call it part of their "religion"--that doesn't mean God made any mistakes or changed anything at a particular time in history--it means humans are not God and have a limited scope of perception.

 

[Thorgasm]

I try to tell people this all the time. It absolutely amazes me how people have accepted this notion that Exodus or Psalms had something to do with the Christian movement. Even other Christians have this backwards. But somehow, it is widely accepted that Islam began with Muhammed. Even though they share the Abrahamic root, everyone acknoweldges and accepts that Islam began with Muhammed. Why then is it so hard for people to understand that the Christian movement began with Jesus? I have theories...

1) The Catholic Church needed the OT, but also needed to please the Christian movement at the time.

2) Critics find it easier to bash Christianity if they can tie it all to the brutal scriptures that came before the movement began.

3) Christians have been conditioned to accept that just because the roots of the Christian God go back to Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. that everything in the OT must apply.

4) Tyrants have every justification they could ever need in the OT (part of that Catholic Church need as well).

For Muslims, history began with Muhammed. There are next to no texts recording history before the Qu'ran in the Arab world. They accept that Abraham followed God (Allah), but for them it really began with Muhammed. I just don't get how people in the West have comfortably gone on and pretended that the Christian movement began with Adam and Eve.

What is your take on Jewish believers?

 

[MSgt]

Sorry Gunny, but your post above demonstrates a very limited understanding of Christian theology as it relates to the historical foundations of the faith. However, from the "way" you say it, I'm not sure that you really care to understand how the NT is the fulfilment of the OT per Christian theology or that one God, who is the same now as He has always been and will always be is the foundation of all Abrahamic religions. Of course human pride will twist the truth of God and call it part of their "religion"--that doesn't mean God made any mistakes or changed anything at a particular time in history--it means humans are not God and have a limited scope of perception.

I know all this indoctrination. I simply believe that the mainstream of Christianity has had it wrong. And the further Christians move into the category of "love thy neighbor" and tolerance, the closer they become the Jesus example. Which happens to be the root of the Christian movement. Even as a child in Church I used to reflect on how certain sermons seemed to dismiss Jesus Christ's example. Your belief in God may be more about an allegiance to the church rather than God.

 

[Thorgasm]

Negative. It wasn't beacuse he was a Chrisitan. And I have stated this enough times for you and Kelzie to stop this charade. My posts are plain as day and here for all to read. I merely mentioned that he was a Christian. It's you that seeks to strip this away, because it doesn't allow you your views on Christianity. If the Christian movemernt stagnates society then why did a Christian lead the Civil Rights movement? If Christians do the pushing in society as you stated, then what does this mean about the society that pushed MLK during the Civil Rights Movment?

The above was exactly my argument against the Chrisatian bashers and so far no one has offered any kind of answer except for to strip the man of his religion.

You are talking in circles now. MLK pushed society, not the other way around. One man does not equal the "christian movement" (unless that man is Jesus). Christians used the story of Cain and his descendents to support their racism. The thing is, the bible is a big book of poetry that you can use to support any agenda you have. There is no universal interpretation of it.

Do you really think that MLK's interpretation was widely accepted? Remember, this wasn't a Baptist rights movement. It was a human rights issue. I don't have to divorce MLK from religion, while his religion may have been a factor, it wasn't what made him right in the eyes of others. Secular progressives agreed with the movement as well. For them, religion was irrelevant.

 

[Felicity]

I know all this indoctrination. I simply believe that the mainstream of Christianity has had it wrong. And the further Christians move into the category of "love thy neighbor" and tolerance, the closer they become the Jesus example. Which happens to be the root of the Christian movement. Even as a child in Church I used to reflect on how certain sermons seemed to dismiss Jesus Christ's example. Your belief in God may be more about an allegiance to the church rather than God.

And who would know that better than you? I mean...as a child you apparently understood the depth and complexities of religious theology and the very purpose an meaning of God's movement in history and individual lives! ! ! How could my imperfect knowledge compare to your obvious near omniscience! If you knew it all then, you obviously know it all now!

 

[Thorgasm]

And who would know that better than you? I mean...as a child you apparently understood the depth and complexities of religious theology and the very purpose an meaning of God's movement in history and individual lives! ! ! How could my imperfect knowledge compare to your obvious near omniscience! If you knew it all then, you obviously know it all now!

I think his point is that it was apparent as a child that men use religion to fulfill agendas that are outside of Jesus's teachings. I noticed this as a child as well.