Christian neutrality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed, a rather important addition which saves lots of time 🙂

Or provides a lot of free entertainment watching people try to hit a moving target? 😉

Originally posted by JS357
You said: "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." You did not limit this to early Christians unless you now assert there have been no true Christians since then.

I think that i have stated that i consider the early Christians to have embodied the
essence of Christianity in its purest form, which later became adulterated due to the
foretold apostasy, during this period of bastardisation I do not doubt that there would
have been true Christians, Jesus of course speaks of a mixing of wheat and weeds
after all, does he not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
King Festsus states that Christianity was spoken against everywhere, Pliny sates that sacrifice had virtually ceased because entire villages had adopted it and we are to believe that Christianity kept a low profile while achieving all of this.

How did the Christians in these villages govern themselves? What were the political arrangements pertaining to social and economic interactions at this village level?

Originally posted by FMF
How did the Christians in these villages govern themselves? What were the political arrangements pertaining to social and economic interactions at this village level?

what are you talking about govern themselves, they were ordinary citizens subject to the secular authorities like other citizens 😕

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the word of God was not preached in a a corner, in fact, Paul states that it was preached in the entire inhabited earth

I think you need to explain how the "original precepts" of early Christianity - in so far as their "neutrality" is concerned - would apply to "the entire inhabited earth" if that preaching of the "word of God" were successful. "The entire inhabited earth" would have to be governed, and by definition that would require political interaction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about govern themselves, they were ordinary citizens subject to the secular authorities like other citizens 😕

Well, here in Indonesia there is a level of government at village level [the lowest/most grassroots there is] and in various ways this local politics influences the way the local community works and also communicates local needs and aspirations "up" to higher levels of governance. What if all the people in a village are "true Christians" and therefore their leaders and elders and representatives and officials are all "true Christians", do they take responsibility for this limited local political control of their village or do they ask a non-Christian outsider to come in and govern them?

Originally posted by FMF
I think you need to explain how the "original precepts" of early Christianity - in so far as their "neutrality" is concerned - would apply to "the entire inhabited earth" if that preaching of the "word of God" were successful. "The entire inhabited earth" would have to be governed, and by definition that would require political interaction.

I have done all i need to do, I will not get involved with useless and futile speculation
on hypothetical scenarios invented for the sole purpose of obfuscation, the matter is
quite simple, early Christians did not participate in civil government because of a
sacred duty and certain principles which prevented them. We therefore have a
historical precedent for Christian neutrality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
right then, the word of God was not preached in a a corner, in fact, Paul states that it
was preached in the entire inhabited earth, King Festsus states that Christianity was
spoken against everywhere, Pliny sates that sacrifice had virtually ceased because
entire villages had adopted it and we are to believe that Christianity kept a low profi ...[text shortened]... the entire city turned out to see the trail of those who were accused, low profile,
neeeeeext!

I can work with it that way. To the extent that they caused uproar, they were NOT abstaining from political abstention. This contradicts your assertion that they "practiced abstention." They were politically dangerous.

You see, if you live in society, even your abstention from politics is political. Can't be helped. That's why this thread is political.

And I suggest you not treat me dismissively with "neeeeeext!" It reflects badly on you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have done all i need to do, I will not get involved with useless and futile speculation
on hypothetical scenarios invented for the sole purpose of obfuscation, the matter is
quite simple, early Christians did not participate in civil government because of a
sacred duty and certain principles which prevented them. We therefore have a
historical precedent for Christian neutrality.

So far on this thread you seem to want to talk about what you refer to as "historical precedent" but not talk about the ramifications of this "historical precedent". These ramifications are political in nature.

early Christians did not participate in civil government because of a sacred duty and certain principles which prevented them. We therefore have a historical precedent for Christian neutrality.

How does this "historical precedent" and these "certain principles" arrange for things like roads to be gritted in the winter, new medicines to be regulated and tested, schools to be heated, harbours and ports to be secured, access to the airwaves to be allocated, citizenship and immigration to be managed, and other social and economic interactions to be tended to as necessary?

Originally posted by JS357
I can work with it that way. To the extent that they caused uproar, they were NOT abstaining from political abstention. This contradicts your assertion that they "practiced abstention." They were politically dangerous.

You see, if you live in society, even your abstention from politics is political. Can't be helped. That's why this thread is political.

And I suggest you not treat me dismissively with "neeeeeext!" It reflects badly on you.

your argument is purely rhetorical in nature and relies for its efficacy on semantics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your argument is purely rhetorical in nature and relies for its efficacy on semantics.

What JS357 is putting to you is nothing of the kind. It is instead rooted entirely in political reality.

Originally posted by FMF
So far on this thread you seem to want to talk about what you refer to as "historical precedent" but not talk about the ramifications of this "historical precedent". These ramifications are political in nature.

[b]early Christians did not participate in civil government because of a sacred duty and certain principles which prevented them. We therefore have a ...[text shortened]... to be managed, and other social and economic interactions to be tended to as necessary?

I have established that the early Christians were not involved in civil government and remained politically neutral, i will not get involved in useless and futile speculation, the matter is quite clear.

Originally posted by FMF
What JS357 is putting to you is nothing of the kind. It is instead rooted entirely in political reality.

why then did early Christians not get involved in civil government but sought to remain politically neutral? which political offices did they hold?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have established that the early Christians were not involved in civil government and remained politically neutral, i will not get involved in useless and futile speculation, the matter is quite clear.

Talking about the political ramifications of what you say you have "established" is not "useless and futile speculation".

Originally posted by FMF
Yes talking about the political ramifications of what you say you have "established" is not "useless and futile speculation".

its useless and futile to speculate on your imaginary scenario's. I will have nothing to do with them.