Originally posted by FMFits another side show Bob, just try to answer the question.
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 ...[text shortened]... ong dead people, has to be one of the most obtuse debating 'positions' you have ever taken! 😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow your allegedly "apolitical principles" would function in real life is not a "side show" at all. It is absolutely germane. What kind of society would those early Christians have created if the society that was all around them had not existed? Unless you can address the ramifications of your desire to take no social responsibility while benefiting from those who do, then your "original precepts" about what you call "Christian neutrality" are down there somewhere at the level of chewing the cud/shooting the breeze/counting angels on the head of a pin relative to seriously discussing the real word and your place in it, and the consequences of your chosen political actions.
its a side show, Bob
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne of the historians you picked for your OP claimed that "neutrality" was a "sacred duty" for early Christians and yet you cannot quote this neutrality as being referred to as a "sacred duty" in the Bible. Or can you?
its another side show Bob, just try to answer the question.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat happened after 180 C.E.?
“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” - The Rise of Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.
Originally posted by FMFIts not about me sideshow Bob, shall I repeat the question,
How your allegedly "apolitical principles" would function in real life is not a "side show" at all. It is absolutely germane. What kind of society would those early Christians have created if the society that was all around them had not existed? Unless you can address the ramifications of your desire to take no social responsibility while benefiting from those w ...[text shortened]... e real word and your place in it, and the consequences of your chosen political actions.
why did the early Christians not involve themselves in civil government and why upon
becoming Christians did they renounce their positions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am sure there were many who felt they ought not to. Others who were afraid. Others who found no way in. Others who were not interested. Just as, on the other hand, there have been millions of Christians who have clearly thought they ought to be involved in government and political interaction. Different people have different takes on whether it's a "sacred duty" in this regard, I suppose. the words "sacred duty" - in terms of being 'political neutral - aren't in the Bible after all.
why did the early Christians not involve themselves in civil government and why upon becoming Christians did they renounce their positions.
Originally posted by FMFno what the historian actually stated was that there was certain administrative duties
One of the historians you picked for your OP claimed that "neutrality" was a "sacred duty" for early Christians and yet you cannot quote this neutrality as being referred to as a "sacred duty" in the Bible. Or can you?
which the Christian could not possibly be a part of without compromising his own
integrity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you just summarize what happened after 180 C.E., perhaps? The date seems to be some kind of cut-off point in the mind of one of the historians you quoted.
may i suggest you read this
http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/features/commentary/early-christianity-politics-and-war/
and this,
http://www.biblestudents.com/Christian_View_of_War.cfm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, Ok then, it was you then who referred to "sacred duty and certain principles" on page 5. Where are the words "sacred duty" applied to "Christian neutrality" in the bible? It's a pretty big issue; the Bible will surely have been explicit and unequivocal about it.
no what the historian actually stated was that there was certain administrative duties
which the Christian could not possibly be a part of without compromising his own
integrity.
Originally posted by FMFFMF go and read some material, your groping for plausible reasons like, they were
I am sure there were many who felt they ought not to. Others who were afraid. Others who found no way in. Others who were not interested. Just as, on the other hand, there have been millions of Christians who have clearly thought they ought to be involved in government and political interaction. Different people have different takes on whether it's a "sacred dut ...[text shortened]... rds "sacred duty" - in terms of being 'political neutral - aren't in the Bible after all.
afraid, they were uninterested, etc etc does not reflect well for you, clearly there was
a conflict of interest and certain principles which conflicted with a Christians ability, not
his or her desire, or his or her station, to be suitable for maintaining a position in civil
government in good conscience.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact that Christians have involved themselves in politics for two millennium clearly does not support your blanket assertions about "a conflict of interest and certain principles which conflicted with a Christians ability" to interact with others in political ways.
FMF go and read some material, your groping for plausible reasons like, they were
afraid, they were uninterested, etc etc does not reflect well for you, clearly there was
a conflict of interest and certain principles which conflicted with a Christians ability, not
his or her desire, or his or her station, to be suitable for maintaining a position in civil
government in good conscience.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you got the actual quote on this? Was he talking about what those particular Christians professed to believe about themselves or was he writing as a theologian himself?
no what the historian actually stated was that there was certain administrative duties
which the Christian could not possibly be a part of without compromising his own
integrity.