3 edits
Originally posted by JS357yes but that is not my motivation, clearly Christians have different values which
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.
conflict with being a part of civil government and its political issues, their allegiance is
not to state, but to Christ, their citizenship, the heavenly kingdom, their morality and
ethics, the Biblical. While maintaining a relative position towards secular governments
they must obey God as ruler rather than men. If it happens, as in the case of war
that this relative arrangement comes under pressure, then clearly a Christians
allegiance is towards his God and he shall remain neutral.
I could have become emotionally involved considering the persecution of Jehovahs
witnesses for maintaining a strict neutrality but i fervently think that the issue is
rather obvious and clear, is soundly fixed on Biblical principles and has a historical
precedence as I have demonstrated. Christ himself belonged to no faction, was not
seeking political office, remained politically neutral with regard to controversial
issues such as taxation and would have nothing to do with controversies of state
That you construe certain actions as being political does not negate these facts.
You treated me with respect, stuck to the script, did not try any cheap shots and i
thank you for that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI didn't say that quite right. I meant that the extent to which you all are willing to endure persecution because you want to live up to your faith, reveals the intensity of your commitment to it, more than any exchange of forum posts can. You would be just as committed in the absence of persecution.
yes but that is not my motivation, clearly Christians have different values which
conflict with being a part of civil government and its political issues, their allegiance is
not to state, but to Christ, their citizenship, the heavenly kingdom, their morality and
ethics, the Biblical. While maintaining a relative position towards secular gover ...[text shortened]... ed me with respect, stuck to the script, did not try any cheap shots and i
thank you for that.
Originally posted by JS357yes, its real to us and you are one of the few persons in my entire time on this site who
I didn't say that quite right. I meant that the extent to which you all are willing to endure persecution because you want to live up to your faith, reveals the intensity of your commitment to it, more than any exchange of forum posts can. You would be just as committed in the absence of persecution.
recognise this facet of our worship, its principled and compromise of these principles is
not an option.
Originally posted by RJHindsso lets get this, you expect us to dismiss the entire testimony of respected historians,
The "Christians Should Just Remain Neutral." Myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUqNv71EWyU
dismiss the example of Christ, the apostles and early Christians, negate clear Biblical
principles and instead believe the testimony of a youtube video? bwhahaha, its like the
poster, believe in Jesus and win a play station 3.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso lets get this, you expect us to dismiss the entire testimony of respected historians
History shows that as time passed and Christianity established itself, Christians were increasingly politically active and interactive.
dismiss the example of Christ
You have dismissed descriptions and interpretations of "the example of Christ" that don't fit your pre-determined stance. Your responses to JS357's thoughtful contributions on this thread on what Christ was and what he represented in political terms have been glaringly weak and/or dismissive. What was that about eating crisps and having a mohawk, again? Did you really think that took care of JS357's points?
dismiss the example of [...] the apostles and early Christians
Yes, you established that early Christians did not want to get involved with the Roman Empire, but you did not establish why that should dictate the political nature of Christians in the subsequent two millennia or in the present day. In fact you pointedly dismissed any discussion of the question of the significance of "the example of the apostles and early Christians" other than to make assertions that their "example" fits your pre-determined stance.
negate clear Biblical principles
Christians all over the world and all down through history have had differing ideas about what "clear Biblical principles" show. You haven't made a particularly strong case here. You ignored various posts that gave you the opportunity to show how these principles, as you see them, can and do apply to real life and to the real world.
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary i have provided reference upon reference from respected historians
[b]so lets get this, you expect us to dismiss the entire testimony of respected historians
History shows that as time passed and Christianity established itself, Christians were increasingly politically active and interactive.
dismiss the example of Christ
You have dismissed descriptions and interpretations of "the example of Christ" that don se principles, as you see them, can and do apply to real life and to the real world.[/b]
which has clearly demonstrated that the early Christians held principles which forbade
and conflicted with their ability to hold a position with regard to political affairs of state
and civil government. The fact that as Christianity was adopted as the state religion
later and that they later became involved politically is irrelevant and a side
show, as are all these other opinions. The arguments that were proffered amounted
to, persecution prevented them from doing so, when in fact it was demonstrated that
persecution was not a deterrent and the real reason was that it conflicted with their
principled stance. To my knowledge not a single principle has been seriously
challenged and instead we are treated to more, yes but later, yes but it was an an act
of politicising and insults like the 'they were parasites', and no, they are all side shows
and practically the weakest arguments that i think could have been proffered, history
has demonstrated otherwise, Christ, the apostles and the early Christians were
politically neutral because certain Biblical principles forbade and conflicted with their
ability to serve in the civil government and take issue with political matters.
Here is a news flash for you side show Bob, our leader is Christ, our allegiance is to
God, our government is the heavenly Kingdom and if the state attempts to conflict with
our adherence to our principled stance, we shall not compromise nor take political
issue, for we remain, 'no part of the world'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have established that early Christians didn't want to cooperate with the Romans. Why does that choice not to cooperate with the Romans almost 2,000 years ago, stop you from being politically active and politically interactive in 20th century Britain?
On the contrary i have provided reference upon reference from respected historians which has clearly demonstrated that the early Christians held principles which forbade and conflicted with their ability to hold a position with regard to political affairs of state and civil government.
Originally posted by FMFwhich one of the principles that prevented the early Christians from taking political
You have established that early Christians didn't want to cooperate with the Romans. Why does that choice not to cooperate with the Romans almost 2,000 years ago, stop you from being politically active and politically interactive in 20th century Britain?
issue is now negated?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe subtext of this is that only someone with your opinions on this is a "true Christian". The fact that other Christians do not believe that Jesus told them not to stand up against things that are wrong, means that their principled actions cannot be dismissed as "irrelevant".
The fact that as Christianity was adopted as the state religion later and that they [b]later became involved politically is irrelevant and a side show, as are all these other opinions..[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFFAIL, history has shown otherwise.
The subtext of this is that only someone with your opinions on this is a "true Christian". The fact that other Christians do not believe that Jesus told them not to stand up against things that are wrong, means that their principled actions cannot be dismissed as "irrelevant".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't have to serve in the British military nor swear allegiance to the state. You live in a social democracy. No one can make you work for the government. But you can stand up and oppose the things that are wrong. This was not seen as an option for early Christians living in the Roman state.
which one of the principles that prevented the early Christians from taking political issue is now negated?
Originally posted by FMFsorry the question was, which one of those principles are now negated? are Christians, still to be, no part of the world? is our leader still the Christ or is it head of state, is our government the heavenly Kingdom or is it parliament. Do we get our values and principles from the Bible or secular government?
You don't have to serve in the British military nor swear allegiance to the state. You live in a social democracy. No one can make you work for the government. But you can stand up and oppose the things that are wrong. This was not seen as an option for early Christians living in the Roman state.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you not "compromising" every time you enjoy the benefits of the democratic political economy all around you that makes the society in live in possible?
Here is a news flash for you side show Bob, our leader is Christ, our allegiance is to God, our government is the heavenly Kingdom and if the state attempts to conflict with our adherence to our principled stance, we shall not compromise nor take political issue, for we remain, 'no part of the world'.