Christian neutrality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again, we have different perceptions, I have not asked that you vote for me, i have not
even asked that you agree with me, I have not asked that you join my party, I have
merely pointed out that early Christians did not involve themselves with civil
government and remained politically neutral, if you think that this constitutes
politicising, ...[text shortened]... and take a vow of silence for seven years you may also
construe that he was politicising also.

You don't really know if early Christians did anything political do you? Were you there? No!

Originally posted by FMF
I am in agreement with you. I also think attempting to restrict addressing what 'politics' actually means, and refusing or dismissing discussion of the political ramifications of so-called "neutrality" is, in and of itself, intensely political.

It's somewhat akin [and I'll surely remove this analogy from the thread's shelf if it buckles under scrutiny!] to a ...[text shortened]... nd impartial" so as to deliver a whitewash on behalf of the pre-set notion. 😵

I refuse to entertain them because they are side shows, for example, stating that
because I bring the matter of Christian neutrality to the forums attention and as a
direct consequence compromise my position because it is construed as politicising is
a side show, it does not even attempt to address why the early Christians did not
involve themselves in civil government nor why on becoming Christians they
renounced their positions, does it. Similar attempts were made to draw ramifications
of what this would have meant given a hypothetical number of scenarios, again,
pure side shows which do not even attempt to answer the question why early
Christians did not involve themselves in civil government and on becoming
Christians renounced their positions, all that has been proffered is the
unsubstantiated and quite frankly silly assertion that persecution prevented them
from doing so. How does persecution prevent you from remaining politically
neutral? It fails in the case of those who were part of civil government and who
renounced their positions, not because of persecution, but in spite of it. Let it be
noted that not one serious nor credible attempt has been made to actually answer
the question, why did the early Christians not involve themselves in civil
government and on becoming Christians renounced their positions and instead we
have been treated to a series of sideshows by JS357 and side show Bob himself, FMF.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I refuse to entertain them because they are side shows, for example, stating that
because I bring the matter of Christian neutrality to the forums attention and as a
direct consequence compromise my position because it is construed as politicising is
a side show, it does not even attempt to address why the early Christians did not
involve the ...[text shortened]... instead we
have been treated to a series of sideshows by JS357 and side show Bob himself, FMF.

How would a society solely of 'True Christians'® function?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How would a society solely of 'True Christians'® function?

with all due respect PK, FMF attempted to ask similar questions. It appears to me to be
purely speculative, the more pertinent question is, why did early christians not involve
themselves in civil government and why upon becoming christians did they renounce
their positions. Why is this question important? because its answer gives an insight into
why christians are to remain politically neutral.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How would a society solely of 'True Christians'® function?

true christians are identified by the love they have among themselves, clearly the 'oil'
which turns the wheels of society would have its basis in christian love, that is, self
sacrificing love, the putting of the interest's of others ahead of ones own. Apart from
that its almost impossible to state with any certainty how it would function.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Let it be noted that not one serious nor credible attempt has been made to actually answer the question, why did the early Christians not involve themselves in civil government and on becoming Christians renounced their positions...

Millions upon millions of Christians have been politically active during the last 2,000 years. You have yet to offer convincing scriptural evidence that Christians are in anyway forbidden from partaking in the kind of activity I have been talking about on this thread. And you have made no credible attempt to actually answer any questions about what the consequences and implications of your so-called "Christian neutrality" are, including your willingness to be a parasite: enjoying the benefits of political interaction, while not participating [another inherently political act].

So there we have it. Presumably early Christians did not involve themselves in civil government because they did not want to - a political stance, in and of itself, as has been cogently pointed out to you. But in the meantime countless billions have involved themselves, for their betterment and the betterment of society, especially in the era of social democracy. One of the historians you picked claimed that "neutrality" was a "sacred duty" and yet you cannot quote this neutrality as being referred to as a "sacred duty" in the Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't really know if early Christians did anything political do you? Were you there? No!

i wasn't there when England won the world cup in 1966, but I am sure it happened.

Originally posted by FMF
Millions upon millions of Christians have been politically active during the last 2,000 years. You have yet to offer convincing scriptural evidence that Christians are in anyway forbidden from partaking in the kind of activity I have been talking about on this thread. And you have made no credible attempt to actually answer any questions about what the consequen t you cannot quote this neutrality as being referred to as a "sacred duty" in the Bible.

because they did not want to? fails to answer the question side show Bob, why did they
not want to involve themselves in civil government, what principles governed their
reluctance. I am uninterested in your hypothetical questions while the main question,
why did he early Christians not involve themselves in civil government and why upon
becoming Christians did they renounce their positions, until it receives a credible
answer, all side shows are on hold, Bob.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You perhaps are forgetting the tiny detail of the Crusades? Or the Inquisition? Or the destruction of the South American indians and forced conscription into christianity?

Yessir, great neutrality displayed there.

what about the destruction of North American Indians? it appears to me that you are
living on stolen land, when are you going to give it back? yessir you are displaying
utter hypocrisy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because they did not want to? fails to answer the question side show Bob, why did they
not want to involve themselves in civil government, what principles governed their
reluctance. I am uninterested in your hypothetical questions while the main question,
why did he early Christians not involve themselves in civil government and why upon
bec ...[text shortened]... renounce heir positions, until it receives a credible
answer, all side shows are on hold, Bob.

Because they though that the fallen world would end very soon and Jesus would be returning blah blah, blah blah. Unfortunately though, two thousand years later, he is still yet to show up. Do you think Jesus prescribes to the notion of being late as 'fashionable'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Because they though that the fallen world would end very soon and Jesus would be returning blah blah, blah blah. Unfortunately though, two thousand years later, he is still yet to show up. Do you think Jesus prescribes to the notion of being late as 'fashionable'?

this may be slightly more plausible than, because they wanted to. have you any references? you think that perception of the civil government ending was a factor?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
true christians are identified by the love they have among themselves, clearly the 'oil' which turns the wheels of society would have its basis in christian love, that is, self sacrificing love, the putting of the interest's of others ahead of ones own. Apart from that its almost impossible to state with any certainty how it would function.

If it is - as you say - impossible to offer even a picture of how your allegedly "apolitical principles" would function in real life, in a society founded upon them, then it is not a credible message or serious proposition for mankind. It is instead little more than a self-regarding charter steeped in a kind of glib contrariness that animates a tiny, parasitic minority that is determined not to take any political responsibility for the common benefits of the society in which they live. This is my view, and it is candid, but it is not intended to offend.

Originally posted by FMF
If it is - as you say - impossible to offer even a picture of how your allegedly "apolitical principles" would function in real life, in a society founded upon them, then it is not a credible message or serious proposition for mankind. It is instead little more than a self-regarding charter steeped in a kind of glib contrariness that animates a tiny, parasitic m ...[text shortened]... ciety in which they live. This is my view, and it is candid, but it is not intended to offend.

its a side show, Bob

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this may be slightly more plausible than, because they wanted to. have you any references? you think that perception of the civil government ending was a factor?

No references. Just an inkling of something i remembered.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why did he early Christians not involve themselves in civil government and why upon becoming Christians did they renounce their positions

These early Christians made their choices and cannot be held to account for them now as they passed away many centuries ago. You, on the other hand, are still alive and you can be questioned on your political choices and their ramifications. You claiming that your willingness and ability to justify your choices in the here and now is somehow dependent on people like me justifying the choices of long dead people, has to be one of the most obtuse debating 'positions' you have ever taken! 😵