Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Nothing at all... and I am not implying that it does. However it has everything to do with naming a holiday in his honor... an honor currently shared only with Jesus.

I would be much more supportive of a "Civil Rights" day than a MLK day. I understand your point about it generally being that... but why not take this name obstacle out of the way and make the holiday inclusive?

 

Rightly or wrongly, if I were a person that placed myself in the public eye and subsequently had a national holiday named in my honor... then I would fully expect people to critically review my past and character. It goes along with fame and position... again, rightly or wrongly.

But to your point, if I were going to cast myself as a moral evangelist then I would be careful that my own behavior, at least current behavior, was consistent with my message. It was King who said that a person should be judged on the content of their character... apparently the day after he committed adultery.

I am not now guilty of the sins that MLK was accused of being guilty of right up until the day of his death. I acknowledge that my past is riddled with sin. If I ever became a public figure... I wouldn't attempt the futile exercise of trying to cover the fact up but would instead acknowledge up front that I have a past that wasn't uniformly God honoring.

None of this changes God's standard nor our obligation to subject those we honor to its dictates.

 

FP, Did you read le bel's post? That is the kind of experience I was pointing to in our earlier debate.

Her assessment is fairly consistent with the testimonies I pointed to over the years.

 

I understand SJ, but still I do not foresee any change. Civil rights are not just for black people, so it is an inclusive holiday anyway, (not that you did not think it so). MLK, despite his flaws, whatever they may have been, gave his life for the movement. Civil rights and MLK go hand in hand. If anyone changed it now, like I said, it would be political suicide. Besides many states refused to have an MLK Day and opted for Civil Rights or Human Rights Days. They were eventually changed. Some southern states celebrate confederate heroes on MLK Day. The point is, MLK is, like it or not, the face of civil rights, especially after his assassination. Any push to change it will just seem racist, whether that is the intent or not. He is important to the African American community. He symbolizes an epic struggle in the right to equality and liberty in the USA, and it has nothing to do with his religion or supposed sins.

As far as being the only one with a holiday, in his honor, besides Jesus. To me that is neither here nor there. It is a non issue, especially since we are in a secular country.

 

SJ,

I did read le bel's post. Thank you for pointing it out. I understand her point and yours, although, it I still do not believe it is all inclusive culture, based, of course, on my own experiences and such.

 

I only mentioned that last fact because King is not the most important figure in American history... after Jesus.

In a time when schools following PC guidelines are teaching more about MLK and Gloria Steinem and their ideals than Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Henry, Adams, and slightly more obscure but none the less important person's like George Mason... and the founding ideals that we directly owe our liberty and history to... I think the distinction is significant.

 

Does not the Reverend in front of his name indicate that according to Scripture he must be above reproach.
I want to know the truth about someone who claims to be Reverend.

The good he may have done comes second to the truth of matters of the church.

 

quote by bell...."Much of this can be applied to just about any culture, but this is what *I* have been raised around. I mean I have a grandmother who adores MLK and supposedly Jesus, yet she also adores her 40 oz Budweiser and drunkenness."
-------------------------------------------------
QUICK, GET HER REGISTERED.....WHAT A GOOD ROLE MODEL FOR A BAPTIST ON THIS BOARD!!

 

LMBO. I love my grams dearly, but there's only so much I can tolerate. She'd have a heartattack if she ever found this site.

When I was abour 8 or so I asked why she used her Bible as a coaster for her beer can. She looked at me like I was crazy, and said to mind myself.

 

Scott: Rightly or wrongly, if I were a person that placed myself in the public eye and subsequently had a national holiday named in my honor... then I would fully expect people to critically review my past and character. It goes along with fame and position... again, rightly or wrongly.

Gina: He was not alive when a national holiday was named after him.
Rightly or wrongly is a major issue here. It is being wrongly done.
Even if it's to be expected. Our standards are not those of the world. We're Christians.

Scott: But to your point, if I were going to cast myself as a moral evangelist then I would be careful that my own behavior, at least current behavior, was consistent with my message.

Gina: Again, we are Christians. That isn't the Christian standard, which should consistantly be "my behavior will be up to God's standards, regardless if one person or the world is watching."
And think about it. How many people are watching you? Do you know? Think of all the people you run across every day, all your neighbors, all of God's angels and all of Satan's angels who are looking at you every day to see what you are doing with your salvation.
I don't buy that you or I have a lesser influence when all is said or done than anybody else, or that the standards we should be up to are any higher or lower depending on how high up the ladder of success we go.


Scott: It was King who said that a person should be judged on the content of their character... apparently the day after he committed adultery.

Gina: Apparently? Do you know that? Where did you read it? Is it gossip? Is it rumor? Does it make slamming his dead self years after on the world wide net ok? If so, why?

Scott: I am not now guilty of the sins that MLK was accused of being guilty of right up until the day of his death. I acknowledge that my past is riddled with sin. If I ever became a public figure... I wouldn't attempt the futile exercise of trying to cover the fact up but would instead acknowledge up front that I have a past that wasn't uniformly God honoring.

Gina: You ARE a public figure. You run into the "public" every day, you deal with people, everyone is listening to you and watching you almost every second unless you're in your own home, and then your kids are going out and telling all your friends what you do at home too.

Scott: None of this changes God's standard nor our obligation to subject those we honor to its dictates.

Gina: I agree with the first part, but you seem to disagree with yourself on the second.

Where do you get that a person had to be sinless, or at least not guilty of major sins, in order to be a great person, and even greatly used by God? All through the Bible we have great men of God committing gross sins. Harlots and murderers adulterers all over the place, and God himself seemed fine with calling them His own, with blessing them, with forgiveness.
Why are we harder on people than God himself? Does that not strike you as very, very, wrong?

 

Very good point Gina. It seems Noah had sins:

And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk , and became uncovered in his tent.
Genesis 9:20-21

and yet

By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Hebrews 11:7

I dare say nobody will start a post in the style of this original post "righoutously judging" the individuals mentioned as faithfull in Hebrews. They all had sins that deserve to be judged, they all are public figures (more famous then even MLK). So have at it lets start a post to judge the sins of those old testement faithfull, Abraham, Moses, Noah. Or are we all to PC judge there sins and speculate on if the were realy men of God.