Originally posted by robbie carrobie
when was corporate Christianity established?

It was a done deal by the end of the 4th century.

Originally posted by FMF
It was a done deal by the end of the 4th century.

yes

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I provide the above for the education of those who have sought to construe that a
politically neutral stance is somehow exclusively the product of a mandate of Jehovahs
Witnesses. Rather than try to refute the ludicrous assertion I will let these facts speak
for themselves and let the forum decide for itself whether true christians were and are,
politically neutral.

Baloney.

You have always maintained that the only true Christians are JWs.

This means that even in your opening sentence, you're speaking exclusively of JWs.

I'm not going to be crammed into your treatise as an afterthought merely as an appeasement maneuver. Sorry.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Baloney.

You have always maintained that the only true Christians are JWs.

This means that even in your opening sentence, you're speaking exclusively of JWs.

I'm not going to be crammed into your treatise as an afterthought merely as an appeasement maneuver. Sorry.

I see, so you cannot explain why the early Christians were politically neutral either,
interesting phenomena that Christians are unaware of these facts, may i suggest you
don't know your history, nor where you are coming from.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is both scripturally and historically self evident that true Christians have always
endeavoured to maintain complete neutrality in the worlds conflicts and its political
struggles. The have not interfered with the rights of others to vote, to hold patriotic
ceremonies, to run for political office, but they themselves have their own governme ...[text shortened]... ned in military
service.” - The Rise of Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.[/b]

I was all fired up to dispute many of these points, but then I re-read the first sentence.

You will just dismiss any counterexamples with the standard, "oh, but they were not True Christians®".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I was all fired up to dispute many of these points, but then I re-read the first sentence.

You will just dismiss any counterexamples with the standard, "oh, but they were not True Christians®".

Indeed, a rather important addition which saves lots of time 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have met one or two christidelphians in my public ministry, I liked them, in fact, one
Russian student who was selling pictures house to house told me he was a
christidelphian, i invited him in and we played a little chess and had some coffee, he
taught me the Benoni defence. I bought a picture of a wolf out of sympathy.

Is it your view that modern day Christians who involve themselves in politics (domestic or international) are displaying a corruption of the original tenets of Christianity, and that they have been seduced by mammon?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Is it your view that modern day Christians who involve themselves in politics (domestic or international) are displaying a corruption of the original tenets of Christianity, and that they have been seduced by mammon?

historically Christians were politically neutral, they did not involve themselves in civil
government and yes, Christianity has been corrupted and absorbed into the political
arena, its fairly easy to trace this process, beginning with the adoption of Christianity
as a state religion in Rome.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
historically Christians were politically neutral, they did not involve themselves in civil
government and yes, Christianity has been corrupted and absorbed into the political
arena, its fairly easy to trace this process, beginning with the adoption of Christianity
as a state religion in Rome.

I do not see anything neutral about Christian history. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not see anything neutral about Christian history. 😏

I see, still unable to comment on the historians,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I provide the above for the education of those who have sought to construe that a
politically neutral stance is somehow exclusively the product of a mandate of Jehovahs
Witnesses. Rather than try to refute the ludicrous assertion I will let these facts speak
for themselves and let the forum decide for itself whether true christians were and are,
politically neutral.

Your statements here on this topic constitute a political stance.

Originally posted by JS357
Your statements here on this topic constitute a political stance.

I may be a political stance in the sense that abstention is a political stance, never the
less, clearly the early Christians did not involve themselves in the affairs of civil
governments but kept a strict neutrality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I may be a political stance in the sense that abstention is a political stance, never the
less, clearly the early Christians did not involve themselves in the affairs of civil
governments but kept a strict neutrality.

Advocating non-voting (political abstention) as an attribute of "true Christians" and advocating that all people become true Christians is advocating universal political abstention. Voting and political participation makes elites pay attention to public opinion. Conversely, non-participation skews the political environment toward the interests of those elites. So your publication of this stance has political ramifications and so, it is not political abstention, but is instead, political participation.

You are violating your own position by advocating it.

Originally posted by JS357
Advocating non-voting (political abstention) as an attribute of "true Christians" and advocating that all people become true Christians is advocating universal political abstention. Voting and political participation makes elites pay attention to public opinion. Conversely, non-participation skews the political environment toward the interests of those elites. ...[text shortened]... is instead, political participation.

You are violating your own position by advocating it.

No I am advocating it for no one but true Christians, the Bible makes it quite clear that
only a small number by comparison are or will be true Christians, ( the road to life is
cramped and narrow and few are the ones finding it) which in turn refutes the
assertion that my advocating abstention in any serious way has consequences for the
civil governments and not to mention states nothing about the fact, which almost every
professed Christian seems to want to ignore, that being, that the early Christians were
politically neutral. According to your reasoning then they must also have been
violating it by advocating and practising abstention.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If it is exclusive to Jehovah witnesses as you seem to be claiming, how will you explain the early churches neutral stance. Please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes

At the time, how would they participate? As lion food?