2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, the fact that the historians you selected were describing the early Christian's status and actions [and beliefs] during the height of the Roman empire, right at the outset for their new religion, has been referred to and discussed a lot, robbie. Both JS357 and I have made reference to it on numerous occasions.
Its a pity you make no reference to the historians that were mentioned
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, robbie. look, we're just trading opinions here. This is how I see it. We can evaluate - to a certain degree - Christians' spiritual mindmaps by their words and deeds, and the extent to which they command admiration. I have met countless Christians who are working for a better world in physical, political and spiritual ways.
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..
They are dedicated, impressive, effective people who inspire and provide an example to others, including non-Christians and even non-believers. I have seen them working up close for 20 years.
The people I am thinking of don't need to be working for a government to be 'political'; they don't use violence; they do not make or sell arms; but they are political beings, focussed on intensely political things like justice, health, education, resisting power, standing up to stuff that is detrimental to communities, to the environment, to the public domain.
I think your dogmatism renders you impotent and inconsequential - in terms of some or all of the things I have just listed. You may choose to call fellow Christians' principles "bastardised" or "counterfeit" or "unrecognizable" to Christ, and you may choose to declare yourself to be "awesome" - as you do here, regularly - but frankly I find their Christian example - their principles in action - far more impressive than the Christian example you offer and propagate. The only thing you appear to actually stand up for, is your right not to stand up for anything. Good for you. But don't be surprised if the vast majority of free moral agents you pitch your creed to will be completely nonplussed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI did a little research. From Wikipedia, on The Constantinian shift:
yes, its real to us and you are one of the few persons in my entire time on this site who
recognise this facet of our worship, its principled and compromise of these principles is
not an option.
"Critics point to this shift as the beginning of the phenomenon known as Caesaropapism. In its extreme form, such critics say, Christianity became a religious justification for the exercise of power and a tool in the expansion and maintenance of empire, a Christian empire, also known as Christendom.
Augustine of Hippo, who originally had rejected violence in religious matters, later justified it theologically against those he considered heretics, such as the Donatists, who themselves violently harassed their opponents.[7] Before him, Athanasius believed that violence was justified in weeding out heresies that could damn all future Christians.[8] This continued a line of thought started by Athanasius who felt that any means was justified in repressing the Arian belief.[9] In 385, Priscillian, a bishop in Spain, was the first Christian to be executed for heresy, though the most prominent church leaders rejected this verdict.
"Theologians critical of the Constantinian shift also see it as the point at which membership in the Christian church became associated with citizenship rather than a personal decision. American theologian Stanley Hauerwas names the shift as the foundation for the expression of Christianity in the United States today that is closely associated with patriotism and civil religion."
unquote
But rather than keep to the unqualified statement that your neutral stance is political, which may imply politically motivated I say it has effects in the political world (and certainly would more so if there were more of you) but those effects are not the motivation for your stance. The motivation, if I may be brief, is to live your faith.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Indeed the reason that Christianity was so successful at its inception was that individuals mattered, within each person was reflected a cosmic struggle where principle would prevail, good over evil. It appears to me the state sanctioned form which evolved after Constantine absorbed many of the elements of Roman state and as your quote acknowledges, the shift moved from the exercise of individual conscience to a type of collective consciousness. This is further compounded that when the distinction arose between clergy and laity, the scene was set for all kinds of power struggles and the promulgation of extra Biblical doctrine which sought to find justification for all kinds of unchristian and non principled behaviour.
I did a little research. From Wikipedia, on The Constantinian shift:
"Critics point to this shift as the beginning of the phenomenon known as Caesaropapism. In its extreme form, such critics say, Christianity became a religious justification for the exercise of power and a tool in the expansion and maintenance of empire, a Christian empire, also known as Ch [b]motivation for your stance. The motivation, if I may be brief, is to live your faith.[/b]
I'll answer the second part later, its not a new question, what effect would it have on society if all adopted similar principles.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't mean to extend this thread into new territory, but in your thinking on what effect would it have on society if all adopted similar principles, please discuss what would happen during a time of significant increase in the number of adopters. I would expect the non-adopting power elite to take advantage of what they saw as the political impotence of potential enemies to entrench themselves further.
Indeed the reason that Christianity was so successful at its inception was that individuals mattered, within each person was reflected a cosmic struggle where principle would prevail, good over evil. It appears to me the state sanctioned form which evolved after Constantine absorbed many of the elements of Roman state and as your quote acknowledges, ...[text shortened]... its not a new question, what effect would it have on society if all adopted similar principles.
But for two reasons I ask that if you develop something on this topic, you start a new thread. It will be easier to focus on, and I will be away for most of November. Having only a kindle fire to use, I will be able to read posts, but replying will be tedious at best.
Originally posted by JS357ok, sure thing, relax, when you have the time.
I don't mean to extend this thread into new territory, but in your thinking on what effect would it have on society if all adopted similar principles, please discuss what would happen during a time of significant increase in the number of adopters. I would expect the non-adopting power elite to take advantage of what they saw as the political impotence of pote ...[text shortened]... only a kindle fire to use, I will be able to read posts, but replying will be tedious at best.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are no passages of scriptures that say “It is permissible for Christians to vote in elections”; but there are also no passages of scripture which say “Christians must not vote in elections”.
so lets get this, you expect us to dismiss the entire testimony of respected historians,
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.
Scripture instructs us to pray for our political leaders. The apostle Paul used his political rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to his political leaders during his ministry. It should be obvious then that just because most early Christians were not Roman citizens and did not have any political rights at that time does not mean they were never to use politican rights, if they had them, like Paul did. As more Christians later gained political rights, they used them. As a result, it appears that is is permissible for all Christians to use their political rights, including voting for political leaders.
Don't you consider the apostle Paul an early Christian?
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsclearly then the historians that I cited were wrong and you know better, tell the forum
There are no passages of scriptures that say “It is permissible for Christians to vote in elections”; but there are also no passages of scripture which say “Christians must not vote in elections”.
Scripture instructs us to pray for our political leaders. The apostle Paul used his political rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to his political leaders d ...[text shortened]... luding voting for political leaders.
Don't you consider the apostle Paul an early Christian?
what qualifications you have in historical study and which historian was inaccurate?