2 edits
Originally posted by JS357you should consider these citations, for they address how the adoption or otherwise
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.
of Christian principles affects society at large,
Origenes (240 A.D.)
This great Alexandrian scholar took occasion to defend early Christian pacifism in his rebuttal to “A True Discourse,” which was an attack on the Christian community by the heathen philosopher Celsus, written in 178 A.D.
Arguments of Celsus: “Towards the close of his treatise, Celsus dealt with the customary refusal of the Christians to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold public office. He was concerned for the safety of the Empire in the face of the attacks of the barbarian tribes of central Europe. And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians (FMF's assertion that we are parasites), he mingled appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending the civilization of the Empire from destruction.”
“(Celsus, an ancient form of FMF) not only exhorts the Christians to take part in civil government, but ‘urges us to help the Emperor with all (our) strength, and to labor with him (in maintaining) justice, and to fight for him and serve as soldiers with him, if he requires (it), and to share military command (with him).’”
Reply to Celsus by Origenes. First, in replying to the objection that, if all did the same as the Christians, the Emperor would be deserted, and the Empire would fall a prey to the barbarians, Origenes says: “On this supposition” (that all did the same as himself and took no part in war) “the Emperor would not be left alone or deserted, nor would the world’s affairs fall into the hands of the most lawless and savage barbarians. For if, as Celsus says, all were to do the same as I do, clearly the barbarians also, coming to the Word of God, would be most law-abiding and mild; and every religious worship would be abolished, and that alone of the Christians would hold sway; and indeed, one day it shall alone hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIt seems as usual you try to find a side stepping way to make things work for you to do what you think is right in your eyes, not what the bible says.
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?
Jesus not only said his followers were to be NO part of the world but he clearly demonstrated that fact for us to follow. He nor any of his followers ever did.
So just because it doesn't say in those specific words, "do not vote" does not mean we dismiss the rest of the bible's warnings and statements by Jesus himself to be NO part of this world.
The Bible does not specifically say do not kill with a gun does it, but yet you would no doubt not see the reasoning in this would you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOrigenes may have been a scholar but he apparently was no sociologist or even good student of the spread of Christianity across the land.
you should consider these citations, for they address how the adoption or otherwise
of Christian principles affects society at large,
Origenes (240 A.D.)
This great Alexandrian scholar took occasion to defend early Christian pacifism in his rebuttal to “A True Discourse,” which was an attack on the Christian community by the heathen philosop ...[text shortened]... ed, one day it shall alone hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls.
I believe the issue would only be resolved in the way Origenes described, if the conversion to pacific Christianity proceeded rapidly and evenly balanced among all, that is, among the citizens and the occupied subjects of the Empire and among their unconquered "barbarian" enemies. But realistically, Christianity was spreading in a punctuated and localized and uneven way across the territories involved, it was not growing everywhere equally, and hardly at all in the "barbarian" lands. So I think he was being unrealistic.
In other words, if I were Celsus, I would have said that this placid conclusion to hostilities depends on the speed of growth in these different communities -- Roman citizens, the occupied, and the barbarians. He'd say, "So tell me about that. The army that is last to lay down their arms in pacifism, might be doing so AFTER their slaughter and conquest of the other two factions. And that Army is likely to be the barbarians."
Of course that wouldn't matter if this life on earth is just part of a larger Christian narrative. But that was part of the doctrine that had to be spread. The barbarians hadn't heard that one, either.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians (FMF's assertion that we are parasites), he mingled appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending the civilization of the Empire from destruction." “(Celsus, an ancient form of FMF) not only exhorts the Christians to take part in civil government...
I have not mentioned "patriotism" robbie, not even once, as you know full well. And I haven't "exhorted" you to "take part in civil government". Nor have I urged you "to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold public office".
But I have indeed mentioned the idea of a group being a "parasite" and you have studiously avoided discussing it - indeed you have studiously avoided discussing any of the real world ramifications of your stance.
You said "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'".
You are of course "compromising" every single time you engage with and utilize the benefits of the democratic political economy that is all around you, and that make possible the society that you in live in.
The way you have sidestepped this question, and questions like it, repeatedly, makes it seem like this is not really a discussion of ethics or morality - or about "good and evil" or about 'right and wrong'. You sound like a member of a political party, gamely trying to argue an obtuse corporate policy point or technocratic detail having lost sight of the real world issues which the policy purports to address.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI did not say anything about the historian being wrong. He just did not give the full picture and does not give the reason. That is why I pointed out history in the New Testament that fills in some of the gap and tell you the reason. You don't deny that the apostle Paul used his political rights, do you?
clearly then the historians that I cited were wrong and you know better, tell the forum
what qualifications you have in historical study and which historian was inaccurate?
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsActually you didn't say anything because they contradict your claims.
I did not say anything about the historian being wrong. He just did not give the full picture and does not give the reason. That is why I pointed out history in the New Testament that fills in some of the gap and tell you the reason. You don't deny that the apostle Paul used his political rights, do you?
The historians do provide a reason, they state that Christians had a more
sacred duty, that being the teaching a preaching of Gods Kingdom, if you think that
being taken to prisoner in Rome, chained to a guard and being kept under house arrest
and eventually killed by Caesar is exercising ones political rights, then be my guest.
Paul appealed to the authorities, he was not a member of the civil administration. Its
the same if you suffer deprivation, you report the matter to the civil authorities, it
certainly doesn't mean you are being a political activist by doing so, does it.
Originally posted by galveston75So are you trying to say you have a better understanding of what Jesus meant than the apostle Paul, who clearly took advantage of his political rights as a Roman citizen?
It seems as usual you try to find a side stepping way to make things work for you to do what you think is right in your eyes, not what the bible says.
Jesus not only said his followers were to be NO part of the world but he clearly demonstrated that fact for us to follow. He nor any of his followers ever did.
So just because it doesn't say in those ...[text shortened]... kill with a gun does it, but yet you would no doubt not see the reasoning in this would you?
I believe it is the duty of a Christian to stand up for the truth Jesus taught and not to distort the truth as the JWs obviously do.
Voting is one of our political rights that we should take advantage of to advance the work of Christ in this world. If we leave it to the atheists, the message of Christ would be banned, so we must continue to use our political rights to fight for freedom of speech and religion in order that we can teach all nations of the world what Jesus taught, as He commissioned Christians to do.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsVoting is one of our political rights that we should take advantage of to advance the work of Christ in this world?????
So are you trying to say you have a better understanding of what Jesus meant than the apostle Paul, who clearly took advantage of his political rights as a Roman citizen?
I believe it is the duty of a Christian to stand up for the truth Jesus taught and not to distort the truth as the JWs obviously do.
Voting is one of our political rights that we shou ...[text shortened]... at we can teach all nations of the world what Jesus taught, as He commissioned Christians to do.
no getting up off your butt and going to people with the good news of Gods Kingdom is
how you advance the work of Christ, unbelievable delusions. Perhaps we can ask the
forum how many people vote to advance the work of Christ? You are going to vote for
a Mormon, how is helping to advance the work of Christ?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is better than voting for a wishy washy muslim-antichristian-atheist like Obama. A JW would be worse than a Morman in my opinion. A Morman will at least give blood to save someone's life.
Voting is one of our political rights that we should take advantage of to advance the work of Christ in this world?????
no getting up off your butt and going to people with the good news of Gods Kingdom is
how you advance the work of Christ, unbelievable delusions. Perhaps we can ask the
forum how many people vote to advance the work of Christ? You are going to vote for
a Mormon, how is helping to advance the work of Christ?
Originally posted by RJHindssorry tell the forum again how he is going to advance the work of Christ?
It is better than voting for a wishy washy muslim-antichristian-atheist like Obama. A JW would be worse than a Morman in my opinion. A Morman will at least give blood to save someone's life.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is interesting to follow this discussion between you and Robbie now that his post led me to read about the "Constantinian shift." I know the basics, but this put it together. It is a fundamental difference between two strains of Christianity, that illustrates the failure of the early followers of Jesus and the compromise that their more "pragmatic" successors worked out with the Roman Empire. You are right in line with that compromise, going on 2000 years later.
So are you trying to say you have a better understanding of what Jesus meant than the apostle Paul, who clearly took advantage of his political rights as a Roman citizen?
I believe it is the duty of a Christian to stand up for the truth Jesus taught and not to distort the truth as the JWs obviously do.
Voting is one of our political rights that we shou ...[text shortened]... at we can teach all nations of the world what Jesus taught, as He commissioned Christians to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift
It explains so much.
1 edit
-Removed-Perhaps if you really understood what that expression means you would not post this comment.
Perhaps this will help?
The Bible’s Viewpoint
“No Part of the World”—What Does It Mean?
"IN THE fourth century C.E., thousands of professed Christians left behind their possessions, relatives, and way of life to live in isolation in the deserts of Egypt. They became known as anchorites, from the Greek a·na·kho·reo, meaning “I withdraw.” One historian describes them as holding themselves aloof from their contemporaries. Anchorites thought that by withdrawing from human society, they were obeying the Christian requirement to be “no part of the world.”—John 15:19.
The Bible does admonish Christians to keep “without spot from the world.” (James 1:27) The Scriptures clearly warn: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4) Does this mean, though, that Christians are expected to become anchorites, withdrawing from others in a literal sense? Should they keep aloof from those who do not share their religious beliefs?
Christians Are Not Antisocial
The concept of being no part of the world is discussed in numerous Bible accounts that highlight the need for Christians to separate themselves from the mass of human society that is alienated from God. (Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-17; Ephesians 4:18; 2 Peter 2:20.) Hence, true Christians wisely shun attitudes, speech, and conduct that conflict with Jehovah’s righteous ways, such as the world’s avid pursuit of riches, prominence, and excessive indulgence in pleasures. (1 John 2:15-17) They also keep separate from the world by remaining neutral in matters of war and politics.
Jesus Christ said that his disciples would be “no part of the world.” But he also prayed to God: “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one.” (John 17:14-16) Clearly, Jesus did not want his disciples to become antisocial, shunning all contact with non-Christians. Actually, isolation would prevent a Christian from fulfilling his commission to preach and teach “publicly and from house to house.”—Acts 20:20; Matthew 5:16; 1 Corinthians 5:9, 10.
The counsel to remain without spot from the world does not give Christians any basis for considering themselves superior to others. Those who fear Jehovah hate “self-exaltation.” (Proverbs 8:13) Galatians 6:3 states that “if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving his own mind.” Those who feel superior deceive themselves because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”—Romans 3:23."
So the view that should be understood is yes we are in the world, we live here and this world was created for all humans to live on. Hense we are here and have to do the things that any living human would do.
But the world as a whole has rejected God and his ways. It's those ways and actions that we are to have no part of such as wars and fighting and killing in them.
So in your opinion why did Jesus tell his followers this?
Originally posted by RJHindsVote all you want buddy but it's all in vain. Man will never solve the problems that Jehovah and his son Jesus will. "Do not put your trust in earthling man" says your bible. But apparently you don't agree?
So are you trying to say you have a better understanding of what Jesus meant than the apostle Paul, who clearly took advantage of his political rights as a Roman citizen?
I believe it is the duty of a Christian to stand up for the truth Jesus taught and not to distort the truth as the JWs obviously do.
Voting is one of our political rights that we shou ...[text shortened]... at we can teach all nations of the world what Jesus taught, as He commissioned Christians to do.