Christians finally smashing the idol of Multiculturalism

Ignatius the Kiwi · Friday at 5:59 PM

PloverWing said:
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was an ordained Baptist minister. What makes you think he wasn't a Christian?

He denied the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, the second coming and our Lord's divinity. He wasn't a Christian.

PloverWing · Friday at 7:37 PM

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
He denied the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, the second coming and our Lord's divinity. He wasn't a Christian.

Depending on exactly what he said, his beliefs might well fit with liberal Christianity. Can you cite a couple of your sources, so I can see Dr. King's statements in his own words?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Friday at 7:46 PM

PloverWing said:
Depending on exactly what he said, his beliefs might well fit with liberal Christianity. Can you cite a couple of your sources, so I can see Dr. King's statements in his own words?

Well liberal Christians don't really believe in Christianity proper anyways. Denying most doctrines like the trinity and ressurection. I believe your Church has had such men as Bishopa even. Perhaps you can demonstrate Dr King affirmed the contents of the Nicene Creed?

PloverWing · Friday at 8:15 PM

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Well liberal Christians don't really believe in Christianity proper anyways. Denying most doctrines like the trinity and ressurection. I believe your Church has had such men as Bishopa even. Perhaps you can demonstrate Dr King affirmed the contents of the Nicene Creed?

I did some googling of my own, and found a couple of papers he wrote while still in seminary that fit pretty well with the liberal Christianity that was common in northeastern seminaries and universities at the time.

I consider liberal Christians to be Christians, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

(Links to the papers I found: "What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection" , "The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically" )

Ignatius the Kiwi · Friday at 8:48 PM

PloverWing said:
I did some googling of my own, and found a couple of papers he wrote while still in seminary that fit pretty well with the liberal Christianity that was common in northeastern seminaries and universities at the time.

I consider liberal Christians to be Christians, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

(Links to the papers I found: "What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection" , "The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically" )

If you think a Christian can deny the Trinity then I guess we will have to disagree. The beliefs I outlined are not optional. Christianity is those doctrines.

ViaCrucis · Saturday at 8:46 AM

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Dr King wasn't even a Christian,

Because you say so?

-CryptoLutheran

Ignatius the Kiwi · Saturday at 1:59 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Because you say so?

-CryptoLutheran

Because he didn't believe in Christian doctrine of the Trinity, among others

lifepsyop · Saturday at 5:51 PM

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Because he didn't believe in Christian doctrine of the Trinity, among others

MLK is one of the highest saints of the postwar consensus religion.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Saturday at 5:56 PM

lifepsyop said:
MLK is one of the highest saints of the postwar consensus religion.

Yet he was not only not a Christian, but he also was a cheater to his wife. MLK is not a good example of Christian virtue despite what some liberal Christians want to advocate for.

lifepsyop · Saturday at 6:00 PM

timothyu said:
But will the Prime Minister resign over his blind eye to the mass rapes that were seen as culturally acceptable?

I think it's more likely the PM will ramp up hostilities against anyone pointing out the mass rapes. With this case, the central premise of the postwar consensus religion is at stake.

They can't admit that it's happening anymore than a Christian could deny the resurrection. It would shatter the foundation of their entire belief system.

lifepsyop · Saturday at 6:04 PM

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Yet he was not only not a Christian, but he also was a cheater to his wife. MLK is not a good example of Christian virtue despite what some liberal Christians want to advocate for.

Yea, it's incredible how much he was idolized. It has only been in the last few years that someone could openly question the supposed sacredness of his character.

PloverWing · Saturday at 7:54 PM

lifepsyop said:
Yea, it's incredible how much he was idolized. It has only been in the last few years that someone could openly question the supposed sacredness of his character.

Only in the last few years? You remember how long it took for the MLK holiday to be approved, right?

It seems to me that it's only recently that opposition to the Civil Rights Movement subsided a bit. But then, as you say, in the last few years the opposition has become more vocal again.

Dr. King is an imperfect symbol of the Civil Rights Movement, but a good symbol nonetheless.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Saturday at 7:59 PM

PloverWing said:
Dr. King is an imperfect symbol of the Civil Rights Movement, but a good symbol nonetheless.

Non-Christian, A cheater, a believer in socialism and progressive ideology, perhaps he does represent the civil rights movement as you say. But he doesn't represent Christianity.

Malleeboy · Saturday at 9:01 PM

I do believe that we do need to question what makes a multiculturalism work?
I can give you 5 examples were it didn't/doesn't work to any example were it does work.
Can we at least look at where it does or is working and why? And the many more examples where it doesn't and why it fails?

PloverWing · Saturday at 11:44 PM

Malleeboy said:
I do believe that we do need to question what makes a multiculturalism work?
I can give you 5 examples were it didn't/doesn't work to any example were it does work.
Can we at least look at where it does or is working and why? And the many more examples where it doesn't and why it fails?

That's a reasonable question.

The examples that come to mind in which multiculturalism works are ones in which a group of people have something in common but are diverse in other ways. Maybe that "something in common" helps.

1) I work at a state university. The students I teach come from every continent except Antarctica and Australia, and most of the world's major religions are represented in my classrooms. The students have a variety of sexual orientations and gender identities. They come from a variety of economic backgrounds. They have in common that they want to learn computer science and mathematics, and on the whole our classroom experience works.

My faculty colleagues are similarly diverse. Our potluck lunches are a fun variety of international foods. We get along well.

2) In the Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey, our diocesan worship services are usually held in a mixture of English, Spanish, Igbo, and Haitian Creole, representing the four largest languages spoken natively by the members of our diocese. As this list suggests, the members of our diocese include recent immigrants from Latin America, Nigeria, and Haiti, as well as long-time residents of the US, with our mixture of ethnicities (which includes people of both European and African ancestry). We share, obviously, our common Christian faith. We work and worship together well.

Are these the kinds of examples you're looking for, or are you thinking of something else?

timothyu · Saturday at 11:55 PM

It is easy to accept multi-culturalism, until one of the minority factions grows and threatens the traditional major one.

lifepsyop · Sunday at 6:00 AM

PloverWing said:
Only in the last few years? You remember how long it took for the MLK holiday to be approved, right?

It seems to me that it's only recently that opposition to the Civil Rights Movement subsided a bit. But then, as you say, in the last few years the opposition has become more vocal again.

Dr. King is an imperfect symbol of the Civil Rights Movement, but a good symbol nonetheless.

I think perhaps the 'sainthood' of MLK has increased proportionally with the abandonment of Christian morality.

As degenerate practices like feminism and homosexuality became accepted and then celebrated, people still need to feel like they are good, and that their enemies are bad. MLK becomes the cornerstone of this new morality, and "racism" becomes the ultimate sin.

At least in my experience in the university / corporate environments of the late 90's to 2010's, MLK was someone you dared not utter a word against lest you be found out a 'sinner'. You could mock Christianity all day long, but dare not question the sanctity of MLK.

The mainline conservative church seemed to readily go along with this program. Today you could sit in most churches and casually talk about how you think homosexuality is okay and you would find minimal or no pushback. However, if you said something that might be even slightly interpreted as being "racist", you would likely find the entire church hierarchy mobilizing against you.

The point being *not* that we should be saying "racist" things in church, but that there is a new program of morality being run in the church that coincides much more with the morality of the open-society postwar consensus than classic biblical Christianity.

Yes I think the average churchgoer, even unconsciously, has much more reverence for the "Civil Rights" movement than for the words of the apostles in how one ought to structure their communities.

According to our major cultural institutions today, the world was basically in darkness and void until the heavenly light of MLK inaugurated the age of civil rights.

Thankfully that edifice is now crumbling.

PloverWing · Sunday at 1:47 PM

lifepsyop said:
I think perhaps the 'sainthood' of MLK has increased proportionally with the abandonment of Christian morality.

As degenerate practices like feminism and homosexuality became accepted and then celebrated, people still need to feel like they are good, and that their enemies are bad. MLK becomes the cornerstone of this new morality, and "racism" becomes the ultimate sin.

I agree that Americans in the postwar era have focused on several different human rights issues side by side. For now, though, I want to keep the focus on race, since that was the subject of your original post.

I agree that self-righteousness is something that we must always guard against. The phenomenon of seeing my enemies as bad so I can feel good about myself is a sin that especially tempts religious people. We see it now, and Reformation-era writers talked about it, and Jesus talks about it. So, beware, always.

lifepsyop said:
However, if you said something that might be even slightly interpreted as being "racist", you would likely find the entire church hierarchy mobilizing against you.

Hmm. I hope that the church leadership would act in a pastoral way toward members of the congregation, and not simply squash them. But when someone says to you "What you just said sounds pretty racist", shouldn't the response be "Oh, you're right, I didn't realize how that sounded" or "I hadn't thought of it that way"? That is, listen, see what was hurtful, and try to do better in the future.

That's really hard to do (and it's a blow to one's dignity!), but we have to listen when someone says "That hurt me."

lifepsyop said:
The point being *not* that we should be saying "racist" things in church, but that there is a new program of morality being run in the church that coincides much more with the morality of the open-society postwar consensus than classic biblical Christianity.

Yes I think the average churchgoer, even unconsciously, has much more reverence for the "Civil Rights" movement than for the words of the apostles in how one ought to structure their communities.

According to our major cultural institutions today, the world was basically in darkness and void until the heavenly light of MLK inaugurated the age of civil rights.

Thankfully that edifice is now crumbling.

Let me ask some questions, to see whether I'm understanding you. Obviously, you're exaggerating MLK to make a point, but it sounds like you dislike the Civil Rights movement that he symbolizes. It sounds like you may be saying that the Civil Rights movement is in contrast to "classic biblical Christianity". But I may be misunderstanding you. So, some clarifying questions.

1. Do you think the Civil Rights movement in the US was a good thing, a bad thing, or a mix?

2. Do you think racial discrimination in employment, schooling, and housing is a good thing or a bad thing?

3. If the members of a congregation are a mix of races and ethnicities, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

4. If the residents of a neighborhood are a mix of races and ethnicities, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

5. If a church works to reduce racial prejudice and discrimination in their area (county, city, state), is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Sunday at 1:49 PM

Plover. Are you willing to admit thag MLK was not a Christian?

HantsUK · Sunday at 3:53 PM

timothyu said:
It is easy to accept multi-culturalism, until one of the minority factions grows and threatens the traditional major one.

As happened in America. There is now alomost no trace of the orignial inhabitants. Until I read one of Grisham's novels, I was unaware of reservations that contain 'Native Americans'. Or is this just fiction? (I also know enough about America to know how little I understand. America and Britian are very different).

Christians finally smashing the idol of Multiculturalism

Dissident

Episcopalian

Dissident

Episcopalian

Dissident

Confessional Lutheran

Dissident

Regular Member

Dissident

Regular Member

Regular Member

Episcopalian

Dissident

Active Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Episcopalian

Dissident

Newbie

Similar threads