05 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFJohn was inspired to write this Revelation of Christ. However, neither the
No I don't think it was "inspired". I don't subscribe to any of its content. It has relevance and meaning to Christians, clearly. Every organized religion is a 'political' entity, as is what it deems to be its literature.
translations nor the interpretatons are inspired, so it is not fully understood
today. But as we approach the time of the end, the Holy Spirit will teach
the servants of Christ the meaning. HalleluYah !!!
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI cannot find one Biblical example of a forced conversion, can you?
I have made no error nor have i confused the teachings of Christ with that of
Christianity, if anything, i have highlighted the difference. You are quite wrong in one respect, at its inception one has only to read the book of acts to determine how many problems and obstacles the early Christians had to overcome, one only has to read Piny to realis ...[text shortened]... ermon on the mount, so what? I cannot find one Biblical example of a forced conversion, can you?
You need to make an important distinction. What is said in the Bible - is what it is. What effect the teachings in the Bible may have, however, is quite a different matter, particularly when applied to practical politics.
When you say that through the teachings in the Bible we will arrive at a better society in whatever form, then you cannot look in the Bible for your evidence. You have to look at history and ask if there is any evidence that its teachings will indeed have the expected effect.
Hence, for example, I would not think it even logical to look in the Bible for evidence of forced conversion to Christianity. I would look at history. The very Bible itself is a product of the politics of the Roman Empire and the push to formulate a definite set of doctrines and beliefs around which to facilitate the protection of the Christian Church and its close association with political power, alongside the forcible suppression of dissident Christians. The Bible was compiled to draw a line between those who are in and those who are out. The dissemination of Christian beliefs in Western Europe was subsequently accomplished on the swords of the Franks and then the Normans, followed with the utter destruction of the Gnostics in the Albigensian Crusade and the use of the Inquisition there and in Spain, before exporting this to Mexico, Peru and other parts of Central and Southern America.
I am well aware that conversions have been achieved in peaceful ways, not least by the methods of the Celtic Church which persisted in Ireland for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire and was brought to a conclusive end by the Normans, who assisted the Pope in securing conformity with the Western Church. Particularly painful to the Pope and the Normans was the lack of a system of Bishops, parishes and payment of tithes in Ireland and the parts of Scotland and Northern England converted by the Irish.
However, the largely Puritan strain of Christianity which has come to dominate the US, alongside the social thinking of the Puritan philosopher John Locke and his very restricted notions about the role of government, does not resemble the Celtic Church and is both highly politicised and reactionary. The trend is very much towards the use of political power to impose moral (eg about the reproductive rights of women) and religious (notably regarding evolution) beliefs in partnership with the political interests of the billionaires.
The Bible is largely a propoganda tool in the hands of powerful forces seeking not to civilise and improve our world, but to impose tyranny. Crazy when it includes the Sermon on the Mount, but it is the smile of the crocodile.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFHi that is fine but it seems to have some meaning for you, albeit negative, otherwise
As I said, the content is meaningless to me. That is the be all and end all, on a personal level, when it comes to a book, surely?
how are we to understand the statement that it was a contributing factor for you to
leave religion. I am not trying to trap or badger you in anyway, I just find it
interesting that it should motivate, or at very least be a contributing factor for
someone to leave religion.
05 Apr 12
5 edits
Originally posted by finneganthen you cannot look in the Bible for your evidence
[b] I cannot find one Biblical example of a forced conversion, can you?
You need to make an important distinction. What is said in the Bible - is what it is. What effect the teachings in the Bible may have, however, is quite a different matter, particularly when applied to practical politics.
When you say that through the teachings in the Bible ...[text shortened]... e tyranny. Crazy when it includes the Sermon on the Mount, but it is the smile of the crocodile.[/b]
Why cant we, why must at every turn and in every instance be denied the very book,
without which we would know next to nothing about or God nor of the teachings of the
Christ. We cannot nor will not look anywhere else for evidence other than the sacred
text. We have already established that the actions of those professing to be Christian
is not the same as those teachings which they profess to represent, forced conversions
is a perfect example, for there is not one instance in the entire Biblical canon which
validates its practice, therefore, its pointless to talk of history, when the validation for
the statement, comes not from the actions of those professing to be Christians, but the
actual teachings of Christ, which can be found exclusively in the ancient text.
Christians have no place in politics, we, like the Christ are no part of the political
system, absolutely neutral, early christians did not hold political office, they did not
serve in the army, in fact, it was debatable whether they should even pay taxes to
governments and rulers who were perceived as being licentious and corrupt, thus
Paul counselled in Romans 13, to be in relative subjection to the governmental
authorities, for it was not clearly understood at the time, just what a Christians
position should be with regard to these authorities.
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe are not asking if Jesus was good. What we know of him - in the New Testament - is our only evidence.
then you cannot look in the Bible for your evidence
Why cant we, why must at every turn and in every instance be denied the very book,
without which we would know next to nothing about or God nor of the teachings of the
Christ. We cannot nor will not look anywhere else for evidence other than the sacred
text. We have already established th ...[text shortened]... stood at the time, just what a Christians
position should be with regard to these authorities.
We are not even asking if the Bible is a good guide to the spiritual life - which one imagines it to be. That is its job.
Instead, we are asking if, in history, the Bible has supplied a good basis on which to arrange our social lives. That is what you claim - that if we follow the Bible then we will find a way to reduce injustice and suffering.
the actions of those professing to be Christians is our evidence base. Why are we not permitted to refer to that evidence?
What is non political about early christians did not hold political office, they did not serve in the army, in fact, it was debatable whether they should even pay taxes ???
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by finnegan[/b]because it was a crisis of conscience not a political matter, clearly the Caesars were
What is non political aboutin fact, it was debatable whether they should even pay taxes to [b] governments and rulers who were perceived as being licentious and corrupt,
licentious, incestuous, gluttons and drunkards, murderers, bloodthirsty, cruel etc etc , the
matter was, would it be deemed moral, proper, responsible to pay monies to this
authority which evidently used those monies in this way, one contrary to scripture and
Paul counselled, yes, not on the basis of politics, but on the basis of conscience.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf one does not buy into the religion's literature, exiting is only natural I think.
Hi that is fine but it seems to have some meaning for you, albeit negative, otherwise how are we to understand the statement that it was a contributing factor for you to leave religion. I am not trying to trap or badger you in anyway, I just find it interesting that it should motivate, or at very least be a contributing factor for someone to leave religion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are simply playing with words in order to sound as if your claims make sense when they are totally incoherent.
because it was a crisis of conscience not a political matter, clearly the Caesars were
licentious, incestuous, gluttons and drunkards, murderers, bloodthirsty, cruel etc etc , the
matter was, would it be deemed moral, proper, responsible to pay monies to this
authority which evidently used those monies in this way, one contrary to scripture and
Paul counselled, yes, not on the basis of politics, but on the basis of conscience.
The claim that Christian politics is based on conscience is debatable but not relevant. It is political.
It is political to pay taxes or not to pay them, to serve in public office or not, to serve in the army or not. People refused to fight in Vietnam for reasons of conscience but that was political and nobody ever doubted it. If you choose to fight against corruption and tyranny that is political. It is not a bad thing to be political - it is dangerous to opt out. It leaves power unaccountable.
What you and others try to play is a game in which your politics is above criticism and beyond scrutiny. You evade accountability for what you actually do or propose doing by turning your troubled little eyes to heaven when the going gets a bit awkward.
And you are not only ill informed but also readily manipulated. By appealing to your religious puritanism politicians can get you and your like to vote in favour of totally insane policies. You are the pawns of the wealthy and the powerful.
The Caesars were indeed often licentious, incestuous, gluttons and drunkards, murderers, bloodthirsty, cruel etc etc. So are many of the billionairs who manipulate our politics. The level and extent of disgusting personal wealth in the West is becoming obscene and ordinary people vote to endorse that. The right wing appeal to religious sentiment in order to control the ordinary voters and play them like a fiddle. That is a large element of the way the wealthy get ordinary Americans, Britons and others to vote for socially destructive policies that harm them and benefit the rich.
IT IS POLITICAL. Get that sorted. And the answers are NOT IN THE BIBLE. If they were the book would have disappeared long ago. It has been much loved by tyrants throughout history. They use it to control people.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then you cannot look in the Bible for your evidence
Why cant we, why must at every turn and in every instance be denied the very book,
without which we would know next to nothing about or God nor of the teachings of the
Christ. We cannot nor will not look anywhere else for evidence other than the sacred
text. We have already established th ...[text shortened]... stood at the time, just what a Christians
position should be with regard to these authorities.
Christians have no place in politics, we, like the Christ are no part of the political
system, absolutely neutral,...
With all due respect, even affection, I submit: Being neutral is a political position.
Your having no place at the political table does influence the political process and the resulting policies and practices. The significance of the part you play is somewhat related to your numbers, which you seek to increase. One obvious influence that would increase with your numbers and the success of your witnessing, would be on the military power of a country that you inhabit. Imagine the result on military power that would come from the ultimate success of your mission in one major country. It is impossible for you to avoid having a political influence in each and every way that you seek to behave alike.
There is a list of 141 things Jehovah's are not supposed to do, at:
http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/things-jehovahs-witnesses-cant-do.php
I can't vouch for their correctness. But if a sizable fraction of the people in a community follow these rules, it will play a proportionally sizable role in the poltical process.
My comments are neutral on whether your political role is good, but it is not neutral on the fact that you will have a role in the politics of any country in which you are a sizable part of the population.
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf all of you JWs would join the Christian right, we could have a big effect on
because it was a crisis of conscience not a political matter, clearly the Caesars were
licentious, incestuous, gluttons and drunkards, murderers, bloodthirsty, cruel etc etc , the
matter was, would it be deemed moral, proper, responsible to pay monies to this
authority which evidently used those monies in this way, one contrary to scripture and
Paul counselled, yes, not on the basis of politics, but on the basis of conscience.
the actions of this nation. For united we stand; divided we fall.
06 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIf the right wing truly takes over the US, I would be bound for Canada. And the US would go on an even steeper slope down the hills of history and become just another country with its internal squabbling meaningless to the outside world. It would be a disgusting place to live. You should read very carefully what Finnagan wrote about politics and religion. The US is in a bad state right now and made much much worse because of the right wing religious movement here. You would have evolution thrown out of schools, no more women's right to choose the fate of their own bodies, in short, running every aspect of our lives through the blinders of religion, in fact it would be just an Americanization of what is going on in Iran. I guess you feel that would be a great thing. It would indeed NOT be a great thing. It would be the downfall of the US. Don't get me wrong, the US would not disappear, it would just become irrelevant in the modern world, where real science would be done in China, Japan, Brazil and the like and the US would be floundering waving the bible around like someone whose eyes have just been plucked out. I mean it sincerely I would become Irish, Canadian, Mexican, ANYTHING but a citizen of the Former United States of America. Sometimes when you wish for something you really get it. If it really happens like that, you can choke on your victory. I won't be here to live like that.
If all of you JWs would join the Christian right, we could have a big effect on
the actions of this nation. For united we stand; divided we fall.
Take a read of this:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-04-effort-opinions.html
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsHow right you are! You would all have a massive effect on the actions of this nation. FOR THE WORSE. I don't wish to enter into a playground squabble of "I'm right, you're wrong", that would be pathetic amongst intelligent adults, but any alignment of spiritual and political leadership, of whatever colour, cannot work, because the two are mutually exclusive, with necessarily different aims and objectives. There is no place in today's enlightened world to force religion, or indeed politics, on anyone.
If all of you JWs would join the Christian right, we could have a big effect on
the actions of this nation. For united we stand; divided we fall.