Martin Luther King Interpretation Of The Church

Martin Luther was already questioning his catholic fate and this became worse when the pope allowed John Tetzel to sell indulgences. Luther strongly believed that the Catholic Church was conning the people of Wittenberg into believing they could pay off their sins. Indulgences are a remission of the purgatorial punishment due for sins according to the Roman Church. In acknowledgement to Tetzel’s actions, Luther wrote the “95 Theses”. The 95 Theses was a criticism of indulgences and it had ninety five points attacking the churches practices selling indulgences.

King states, “Just as the eighth century prophets left their little villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home town, and just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically every hamlet and city of the Greco-Roman world, I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my particular home town. Like Paul I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.” (645). This quote demonstrates Kings knowledge of the bible and his experience in religion. “Apostle Paul” was once “Saul” who helped kill Jesus Christ and one day was visited by God himself and realized Jesus Christ was his Lord and savior. He then went spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, King uses this because something someone once hated can turn into something that you

Which matters because it shows that he is credible enough and that he has a biblical duty. King lets the clergy know that there is an interrelatedness of America that is in jeopardy, which shows that he has a right to be there and stand up against unjust actions. First he says "I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states." then "Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea". Therefore, he shows that he has logic and knowledge to add

Most of the church does not support his tactic of civil disobedience and direct action because it is “inciting violence” and is “untimely.” His rebuttal consists of questions like, “Do people who have money get blamed for robbery?” and “Who gets to decide the timing of our actions?” The protesters were getting blamed for problems that they did not start or contribute to, thus showing the drastic prejudice of the time period. How would one even pick a time for change and what the conditions would be to make perfect environment? The church is against violence, so any sign of brutality tends to make the church uneasy. In the clergymen’s eyes, civil disobedience leads to violent actions, so they determined that the “instigators” and their methods must be unsuitable. King disagrees with the church as an institution, which makes him seem religiously irreverent to some. Nevertheless, he is actually preaching the ways of his faith in a powerful and devout

Endless supply of the accompanying two talks, Martin Luther Ruler Jr's discourse from the Lincoln Remembrance on August 28, 1963, and Representative George Wallace's inaugural location from the Alabama state capital January 14, 1963, it turns out to be clear that these two men remained as perfect inverses on the theme of isolation and equivalent rights for the dark group in America. Lord and his promotion of quiet shows all over the South remained as a solid sign of his dependence on the regular law hypothesis; while in the meantime, Wallace, stayed outdoors on the inverse side of the contention, exhibits his dependence on the positive law hypothesis. Wallace attempted to discover an a dependable balance in the regulating social standards of

Early on in his famous letter, Martin Luther King Jr. writes: “I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership conference” (King 2). In a similar fashion, Malcolm X states in the third paragraph of his speech: “Although I am still a Muslim, I’m not here to discuss my religion” (X 24). Both making their religions clear, but the way they approach religion in the two texts are starkly different from one another.

King begs for a civil and peaceful resolution to the unjust laws and unfair treatment of African Americans. But, as history shows, the clergymen were not going to have anything to do with that. King says that he is trying to do this in the best way possible but it will not seem that way, “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law… One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”(par. 12)

He himself grew up with God and then went on and studied ministry. He is well educated in and out of religious matters. An example, when King responds to the question of how is he okay to break some laws and obey others? King concedes, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” (King 15) Basically saying that yes, it is right to obey laws that are fair but it is also right to disobey laws that are not fair. What is the point of having laws if they are not helping people, but instead hurting them? There should just be no law at all. Why would the government rather suppress its citizens then help them be all they can be? Even though we are all different, we are all still one in the same when it comes to society as a whole. The better we are as individuals means the better we can be as a

Throughout history our society has chose to recognize and remember certain individuals that have had a dramatic influence on our lives. Some of these individuals were of an evil nature, such as Hitler, but I would like to believe that the majority of the people we remember were the ones that had a positive influence on history, such as Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King Jr. I would like to reflect on the men who served a higher power that they called abba, father, or as we would recognize today, God.

Martin Luther grew up in a home with very strict parents. As a result, Luther’s childhood was plagued with anxiety at home and at school. Because his father planned for him to become a lawyer, shortly after receiving a Master of Arts degree from Erfurt University he returned to the university to study law. Consequently, after a life threatening experience in a storm, Luther left the university and joined a monastery. In 1505, Luther became an Augustinian monk and subsequently became a priest in 1507. According to John Dillenberger, “Luther was extremely sensitive to the problem of how to become worthy to receive the grace of God rather than the damning consequences of His righteousness”.

In this paper I have decided to write about Martin Luther. I will be focusing primarily on his beliefs and his refusal to recant what he believes in when he is brought before the Holy Roman Emperor. So often it is difficult to stand up for what you believe in, particularly when few or none at all share your same views or opinions. When Luther chose not to revoke what he believed to be true multiple times I admired and respected him. Not only did he choose not to revoke but also explained in full for each person to understand why he could not revoke his works.

Lastly, King appeals to character as well as establishing his creditability. For starters, the the vocabulary King chose to use shows that he is educated and possesses the knowledge to respond to the clergymen. King also informed the clergymen that he had previous experience in conducting and participating in non-violent campaigns. This provides credibility because it showed that he had prior knowledge of the behavior and purpose of those participating, while also addressing that past campaigns have always been “untimely”, but with desired outcome. The last and most obvious proof of credibility, is that King was a black man that faced the same adversities that he referred to in the last paragraph of this section. The example being of having to personally tell his daughter why she could not be allowed to go to a public amusement park because she was black and looked at as less than.

Martin Luther King wrote a paper for his course ‘Development of Christian Ideas’ taught by Davis. “The essay examines how Christianity developed as a distinct religion with a set of central tenets and how it was influenced by those pagan religions it assimilated. Davis gave the essay an A, stating: "This is very good and I am glad to have your conclusion. It is not so much that Christianity was influenced by the Mystery Cults, or borrowed from them, but that in the long process of history this religion developed.” this is simply what occurs in every culture, progression, but in some instances there is regression. This book “Cracking India” by author Bapsi Sidhwa is established during the 1947 partition of India. It revolves around a young

Martin Luther’s religious ideas created an eclectic mix of responses dealing with social power and influence in society. Many people reinvented Luther’s ideologies to fit their wants and goals. This in turn influenced peasants to strive for social justice, the Pope to be on the defensive to maintain authority, and world leaders like Charles V to use the reaction of the Pope for personal gain.

Martin Luther became an inspiration to people from all sorts of social and political ranks. According to the textbook, “many peasants hoped that the new religion would free them from the exaction of their landlords; towns and princes thought it would allow them to consolidate their independence; nationalists thought it would liberate Germany from the demands of foreign popes bent on feathering their own nests in central Italy” (Cole & Symes, 2014, p. 425). Of course, martin strongly opposed the idea of buying indulgences in exchanges for god’s forgiveness. He believed that no matter how many good deeds a follower would commit, it would never