1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAs i stated, a bastardisation had occurred which is undeniable and the principles which
History has shown what, robbie? You cannot deny that Christians have been politically active for almost 2,000 years. History has shown exactly this.
the early Christians adhered to have been pushed aside and a counterfeit kind of
Christianity evolved, unrecognisable to the simplicity of Christ and the early Christians,
are you denying the fact. No i didn't think so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "values" are you talking about? If you think war is wrong, you should oppose war, not remain "neutral" about it. When it comes to war, I don't see that you have any "value" or "principle" at all. You don't oppose it; you are "neutral" about it.
sorry 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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe subtext of this is that only someone with the same opinions and interpretations as you is a "true Christian".
As i stated, a bastardisation had occurred which is undeniable and the principles which the early Christians adhered to have been pushed aside and a counterfeit kind of Christianity evolved, unrecognisable to the simplicity of Christ and the early Christians, are you denying the fact. No i didn't think so.
Originally posted by FMFso being neutral is having no value and yet just a few pages ago you were agreeing with JS357 that simply having this stance was politicising, what up Bob, your knickers in a twist?
What "values" are you talking about? If you think war is wrong, you should oppose war, not remain "neutral" about it. When it comes to war, I don't see that you have any "value" or "principle" at all. You don't oppose it; you are "neutral" about it.
Originally posted by FMFyou don't think that the Christianity that evolved after the fourth century and onwards
The subtext of this is that only someone with the same opinions and interpretations as you is a "true Christian".
is in anyway different from the Christianity as practised by Christ and the early
Christians? You are beginning to look rather silly FMF. Its unrecognisable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's why I put "neutral" in quotation marks, robbie. You say you oppose war, but you don't; your "neutrality" means your stance is de facto consent.
so being neutral is having no value and yet just a few pages ago you were agreeing with JS357 that simply having this stance was politicising, what up Bob, your knickers in a twist?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFso it is, we consent to others taking up arms because we ourselves don't on principle
That's why I put "neutral" in quotation marks, robbie. You say you oppose war, but you don't; your "neutrality" means your stance is de facto consent.
and we quite like the fact that we are likely to face imprisonment, , persecutions etc etc
because we consent to it and they, in full harmony with our teachings kill each other,
dismissed with disdain.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt evolved. To say it's unrecognizable is hyperbole.
you don't think that the Christianity that evolved after the fourth century and onwards
is in anyway different from the Christianity as practised by Christ and the early
Christians? You are beginning to look rather silly FMF. Its unrecognisable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou should stand up for what is right. You should oppose what is wrong. Surely?
so it is, we consent to others taking up arms because we ourselves don't on principle and we quite like the fact that we are likely to face imprisonment, ,
persecutions etc etc because we consent to it, dismissed with disdain.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIndeed, we are counselled to pray for those persecuting us, are we not. Killing is not
You should stand up for what is right. You should oppose what is wrong. Surely?
right and we are counselled to oppose evil with good, but as the apostle states, our
weapons are not , 'fleshly', are they and our warfare not fought with physical weapons.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not suggesting that you oppose war and violence "with physical weapons".
Indeed, we are counselled to pray for those persecuting us, are we not. Killing is not
right and we are counselled to oppose evil with good, but as the apostle states, our
weapons are not , 'fleshly', are they and our warfare not fought with physical weapons.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFwhy didn't the early Christians stand up when their belongings were being looted? was
You should stand up for what is right. You should oppose what is wrong. Surely?
it right? why didn't they stand up when they were being persecuted? was that right?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf the early Christians had stood up in the way I am suggesting, they probably would have all been slaughtered and Christianity a tiny blip upon the sweep of history. You live in a 21st century social democracy. And there are tyrannies out there that need to be opposed. Will you speak out in support of those who would seek to oppose dictators? You can stand up and oppose war, violence, the arms trade, tyranny, and whatever. You can stand up for what is right. Millions do.
why didn't the early Christians stand up when their belongings were being looted? was
it right? why didn't they stand up when they were being persecuted? was that right?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBUMP.
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'.
Are you not "compromising" every time you enjoy the benefits of the democratic political economy all around you that makes the society that you in live in possible?