Enjoy...
Posted on 04/24/2012 8:58:57 AM PDT by Milagros
Martin Luther King's assassin shot him dead to collect £62,000 bounty from Ku Klux Klan, new book claims By Daniel Bates PUBLISHED: 11:21 EST, 11 April 2012 | UPDATED: 03:42 EST, 12 April 2012 Martin Luther King was shot dead because a £62,000 bounty had been placed on his head by the Ku Klux Klan, according to a new book. Assassin James Earl Ray was in jail when he is said to have heard on the prison grapevine that the racist group would pay out to anyone who ended the life of the black U.S. civil rights leader. The book’s authors say the KKK in the 1960s functioned like an Al Qaeda-style organisation raising money to fight a ‘holy war’ against black people.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This is written by MLK and is a good place to start if you would like to understand his political and social ideas, as they were influenced by his Christian faith.
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/my_pilgrimage_to_nonviolence1
“The lessons which I was taught in Sunday School were quite in the fundamentalist line. None of my teachers ever doubted the infallibility of the Scriptures. Most of them were unlettered and had never heard of Biblical criticism. Naturally I accepted the teachings as they were being given to me. I never felt any need to doubt them, at least at that time I didn’t. I guess I accepted Biblical studies uncritically until I was about twelve years old.7 But this uncritical attitude could not last long, for it was contrary to the very nature of my being. I had always been the questioning and precocious type. At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly. At the age of fifteen I entered college and more and more could I see a gap between what I had learned in Sunday School and what I was learning in college. This conflict continued until I studied a course in Bible in which I came to see that behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape...
My days in college were very exciting ones. As stated above, my college training, especially the first two years, brought many doubts into my mind. It was at this period that the shackles of fundamentalism were removed from my body. This is why, when I came to Crozer, I could accept the liberal interpretation with relative ease...
At the age of 19 I finished college and was ready to enter the seminary. On coming to the seminary I found it quite easy to fall in line with the liberal tradition there found, mainly because I had been prepared for it before coming.”
“An Autobiography of Religious Development”
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_501122_00
“A King quote from this same paper about the Sonship of Jesus—
The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of development. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?
We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.
...As Hedley laconically states, “the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.”
Next, King on the virgin birth—
First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for “young woman.” How then did this doctrine arise?
A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin’s First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.
A more adequate explanation for the rise of this doctrine is found in the experience which the early christians had with Jesus. The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness could only by accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific. They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought patterns of their day.
And finally, King on the resurrection—
The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?
The root of our inquiry is found in the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward form. “
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm
Wikipedia the leftist encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Really? LOL.
And yet he met with communists.
Calling me KKK because I dont like the lie that has been pushed on the USA about the communist womanizer fraud doesnt make me part of the KKK or racist. If people cant question then this nation is lost. Race Card, you are pathetic.
Meeting with communists, in and of itself, is consistent with what a Christian would do.
Remember, he rejected the groundwork of Marxism.
Keep on believing that BS. He met with them because the soviets were trying to sow civil discord in the US at that time during the height of the cold war and he was part of it. Which is the reason the FBI was watching him closely. Speaking truth to power will never fail. Call me racist or whatever the liberal PC media has brainwashed people into thinking a certain way but thats the truth. Do your research and try not to be biased. Its out there. He was a fraud I have no doubt.
It does seem that when he was twenty, King wrote essays as though he held a materialist view of Christ.
Bottom line is, if he didn’t believe in the Resurrection he wasn’t Christian. But religious beliefs often change after age twenty.
What I believe won’t have any effect on whether something is true or not.
Maybe he was a fraud. But a pastor I respect once said that the truth about King has been “hijacked.” This is the source of my skepticism.
And in his Birmingham letter, King indicates he believes in a transcendent moral law superior to the laws of men. This is in direct opposition to all leftist/materialist beliefs.
“...he believes in a transcendent moral law superior to the laws of men. This is in direct opposition to all leftist/materialist beliefs.”
He and his coterie of nincompoops regularly had hotel room orgies.
This is in direct opposition to all Christian beliefs.
I see. So this is an attack on some of his work in seminary. I don’t think it’s good to attack Dr. King and the work he did and the things he stood for. Dr. King stood, and died, for belief that white and black could integrate and be friends with one another. When he died, Dr. King’s dream died with him. From there on out, it has been the radical faction, the Malcom X disciples, the Elijah Muhammed model, the Louis Farrakhan devotees who have dominated white-black relations, stoking the anger, waving the bloody shirt. It really makes me sad that the Rev. Dr. King’s dream is dead. Because the only other way is blood.
“I see. So this is an attack on some of his work in seminary. I don’t think it’s good to attack Dr. King and the work he did and the things he stood for.”
King was an associate of communists, a serial adulterer and a theological heretic.
With that orgy comment your credibility is a bit in question.
“With that orgy comment your credibility is a bit in question.”
I think you have learned a few things on this thread you didn’t know.
Keep digging and you may just learn more.
MLK was a serial adulterer.
Every man is a serial adulterer. That is, if we define adultery the way Jesus Christ defines it—and I don’t see any sense in defining it any other way.
“Every man is a serial adulterer. That is, if we define adultery the way Jesus Christ defines it—and I don’t see any sense in defining it any other way.”
Not every man acts on his impulses with scores of women.
But of all these men—those you suggest are out there not acting on their impulses—none of them can be justified by their own acts.
I agree that actively sinning is wrong. But if a man fears God, he will hate sin and through his trust in the Lord and by asking the Lord to act through him, that man will turn from sin. As Charles Swindoll has said, Christians are not sinless but they will sin less (as time goes on).
After all this, the picture that has emerged of MLK is that of a man whose sins mirrored, in part, those of King David. And if in this world MLK had the Son, then he has everlasting life. Of all the questions and unknowns about MLK, it seems to me this is the only one that really matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.