Christian neutrality

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Another aspect to consider is that Christians were openly persecuted by the Roman state and by local level government. Why would any Christian living under those conditions want to become a part of the same apparatus which is persecuting them? I know i wouldn't.

yes but they were persecuted for a reason, primarily because they had a conflict of
interest because of their adherence to certain principles, if there was no conflict of
interest, then they would not have been persecuted. It also does not explain those who
were members of civil government and who rescinded their positions on becoming
Christians, for persecution did not act as a deterrent, in fact, many did so knowing full
well that they would face persecution.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but they were persecuted for a reason, primarily because they had a conflict of
interest because of their adherence to certain principles, if there was no conflict of
interest, then they would not have been persecuted. It also does not explain those who
were members of civil government and who rescinded their positions on becoming
Christ ...[text shortened]... t act as a deterrent, in fact, many did so knowing full
well that they would face persecution.

What is this 'conflict of interest'? What 'certain principles'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What is this 'conflict of interest'? What 'certain principles'?

well for starters Rome and its dependencies were military states, thus there were objections to military service

(1) Refusal to kill—on authority of Ten Commandments and Jesus’ teaching.

(2) Refusal to bear arms—on authority of Master’s command not to take sword.

(3) Refusal to violate Christian principles—love, gentleness, and patience replacing hate, revenge, strife, and envy.

(4) Refusal to abide by unconditional military oath on ground of inconsistency with the pledge of loyalty to Christ.

(5) Refusal to comply with military life which necessitated:

Extortions.
Police service.
Acts of violence, scourging, torture, crucifixion.
Association with brutal and licentious comrades.
Contamination by idolatry, emperor worship, and pagan rites.

http://www.biblestudents.com/Christian_View_of_War.cfm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well for starters Rome and its dependencies were military states, thus there were objections to military service

(1) Refusal to kill—on authority of Ten Commandments and Jesus’ teaching.

(2) Refusal to bear arms—on authority of Master’s command not to take sword.

(3) Refusal to violate Christian principles—love, gentleness, and patience repl ...[text shortened]... ry, emperor worship, and pagan rites.

http://www.biblestudents.com/Christian_View_of_War.cfm

So you've established the reason for early Christian's aversion to the Roman state. But there's scarcely anything on that list that applies to, let's say, you now in the 21st century, or that justifies disavowing politics for the same reasons as early Christians disavowed collaborating with Rome.

Originally posted by FMF
So you've established the reason for early Christian's aversion to the Roman state. But there's scarcely anything on that list that applies to, let's say, you now in the 21st century, or that justifies disavowing politics for the same reasons as early Christians disavowed collaborating with Rome.

every single principle is still applicable, war is still wrong, acts of violence are still
wrong, idolatry in whatever form is still wrong, a christians allegiance is still to his God
above all else, including the state, a christians obligation is still to apply Christ counsel
to return the sword to its place, a christian in still under duress to display kindness, to
forgive ones enemies, to state that these principles are inapplicable is a nonsense, Do
governments still demand allegiance above all else? are they still building armaments?
fomenting war? then a christian is under no obligation to have anything to do with them
for they violate clear standards of conduct unacceptable for a christian. A true
christian will remain neutral.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
every single principle is still applicable, war is still wrong, acts of violence are still
wrong, idolatry in whatever form is still wrong, a christians allegiance is still to his God
above all else, including the state, a christians obligation is still to apply Christ counsel
to return the sword to its place, a christian in still under duress ...[text shortened]... lear standards of conduct unacceptable for a christian. A true
christian will remain neutral.

No. I reckon a principled Christian would proactively oppose things that are wrong and do so in the political arena. I've met many of them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
every single principle is still applicable, war is still wrong, acts of violence are still
wrong, idolatry in whatever form is still wrong, a christians allegiance is still to his God
above all else, including the state, a christians obligation is still to apply Christ counsel
to return the sword to its place, a christian in still under duress ...[text shortened]... lear standards of conduct unacceptable for a christian. A true
christian will remain neutral.

war is still wrong

Then oppose it. Don't be "neutral" about war if it is wrong.

acts of violence are still wrong,

Then fight to reduce the incidence of violence. Oppose and condemn violence perpetrated by the state you live in.

idolatry in whatever form is still wrong

Then don't engage in idolatry and fight to put an end to it if it's wrong and if you think putting an end to idolatry is a political priority.

christians allegiance is still to his God above all else, including the state

You can keep your allegiance to God while working to improve the state in which you live

christians obligation is still to apply Christ counsel to return the sword to its place

Then be a conscientious objector - you already are - it is a political stance. Already. It is a political stance that is in some respects worthy of admiration.

a christian in still under duress to display kindness, to forgive ones enemies, to state that these principles are inapplicable is a nonsense,

Then display kindness, and forgive your enemies. Being political does not mean you are "the state". If the state engages on nonsense and "wrong" then criticize it. Oppose it. Change it.

Do governments still demand allegiance above all else?

No. None of the governments in the countries I have lived in have.

are they still building armaments?

Then oppose the building armaments if your principles tell you it is wrong.

fomenting war?

Oppose it. Don't be "neutral" about war.

then a christian is under no obligation to have anything to do with them for they violate clear standards of conduct unacceptable for a christian.

No one is asking you to foment war and build armaments. Why don't you oppose these things rather than "remain neutral"?

A true christian will remain neutral.

A principled Christian would oppose and fight against whet they see as wrong.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I refuse to entertain them because they are side shows, for example, stating that
because I bring the matter of Christian neutrality to the forums attention and as a
direct consequence compromise my position because it is construed as politicising is
a side show, it does not even attempt to address why the early Christians did not
involve the ...[text shortened]... instead we
have been treated to a series of sideshows by JS357 and side show Bob himself, FMF.

Yes, I said Jesus didn't vote because nobody voted. I thought that conveyed enough of an answer that political participation is tough in an occupied territory when you are not a citizen of the empire. Other ways to participate have to be found.

So the story has it that Jesus did not knowingly engage in politically significant actions like overturning the money changing tables in a temple, thereby disrupting a business run by and sanctioned by the Jewish hierarchy, and doing other things that drew the attention and condemnation of the Jewish hierarchy? There was no separation of church, business, and state. To attack one was to attack all. He did not knowingly upset the delicate balance of power-sharing between the Roman occupiers and the Jewish hierarchy and draw the Roman government into an internal affair of the occupied people? What you fail to see, and will continue to fail to see, is that these actions had predictable political effects that any preacher of that day would have realized beforehand, just as announcing and then burning a Quran in a Florida churchyard has today. Non-participation in political affairs would not have looked like that. Any reasonable person would conclude that Jesus knew what he was doing, and knew he was participating in the political affairs of the day, in the ways available to him.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes, I said Jesus didn't vote because nobody voted. I thought that conveyed enough of an answer that political participation is tough in an occupied territory when you are not a citizen of the empire. Other ways to participate have to be found.

So the story has it that Jesus did not knowingly engage in politically significant actions like overturning the mo ...[text shortened]... nd knew he was participating in the political affairs of the day, in the ways available to him.

rec'd.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again, we have different perceptions, I have not asked that you vote for me, i have not
even asked that you agree with me, I have not asked that you join my party, I have
merely pointed out that early Christians did not involve themselves with civil
government and remained politically neutral, if you think that this constitutes
politicising, ...[text shortened]... and take a vow of silence for seven years you may also
construe that he was politicising also.

I'd say if his present and past announcements were that true Christians don't participate in politics and everybody should be a true Christian and that his public pole sitting was to draw attention to that fact, (or was a call for universal action of some other kind) then he is politicizing the event. Like you say, our perceptions differ. I thought that finished it but you persist.

Originally posted by JS357
I'd say if his present and past announcements were that true Christians don't participate in politics and everybody should be a true Christian and that his public pole sitting was to draw attention to that fact, (or was a call for universal action of some other kind) then he is politicizing the event. Like you say, our perceptions differ. I thought that finished it but you persist.

what constitutes politicisation and what does not is a side show, all you need to do is
eat a packet of crisps on the subway while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, let a box
of newly hatched butterflies fly away, sett off fireworks, sport a Mohawk, I mean, you
are likely to be accused of politicising merely by walking in certain streets or wearing
sneakers to certain restaurants and its to my mind a nonsense, for it seems to me that
what you term politicising is in fact nothing more than making some kind of statement,
which has nothing in fact to do with Christianity, nor of neutrality and is therefore a side
show, although interesting in itself, to a degree.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...eating a packet of crisps on the subway while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, let a box of newly hatched butterflies fly away, sett off fireworks, sport a Mohawk, I mean, you are likely to be accused of politicising merely by walking in certain streets or wearing sneakers to certain restaurants...

Jesus did things that were far more politicized than these things you list about crisps, t-shirts, butterflies and mohawks,.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes, I said Jesus didn't vote because nobody voted. I thought that conveyed enough of an answer that political participation is tough in an occupied territory when you are not a citizen of the empire. Other ways to participate have to be found.

So the story has it that Jesus did not knowingly engage in politically significant actions like overturning the mo ...[text shortened]... nd knew he was participating in the political affairs of the day, in the ways available to him.

there were political factions in Jerusalem when Christ walked the earth, were there not
and yet he did not align himself with any of them. Fact. When people tried to make
him King, he withdrew, when he was asked certain controversial and politically charged
questions he remained entirely neutral, for example,

When asked about taxation, he retorted, whose head is on the coin, Caesar was the
reply, well then give Caesar things to Caesar and Gods things to God. Did he become
embroiled in the political issue of taxation and whether it was fair, no he did not, he
remained entirely neutral.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
When asked about taxation, he retorted, whose head is on the coin, Caesar was the
reply, well then give Caesar things to Caesar and Gods things to God. Did he become
embroiled in the political issue of taxation and whether it was fair, no he did not, he
remained entirely neutral.

Jesus's answer about the tax question was astute and profoundly political. If he had been crucified as an anti-taxation advocate would there have been a religion based on his life and death?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there were political factions in Jerusalem when Christ walked the earth, were there not
and yet he did not align himself with any of them. Fact. When people tried to make
him King, he withdrew, when he was asked certain controversial and politically charged
questions he remained entirely neutral, for example,

When asked about taxation, he ...[text shortened]... itical issue of taxation and whether it was fair, no he did not, he
remained entirely neutral.

I think I understand the intensity of your feelings on this. JWs in some countries are persecuted as political enemies of the state, because (in my words) they are seen as competitors for the hearts and minds of the populace. Kingdom halls are seen as competitor mini-governments. I'm not going to drag this out any more. I think we have said all we can on it. I appreciate your being civil about it.