Christian neutrality

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

Christians started holding political office once as it was safe and politically feasible to do so, which was not back when they were being persecuted for who they were. Why would the fact that there was a period of time when they did not hold political office and were unable to take responsibility for their communities and the wider society mean that they should abstain from it when they are regular citizens like any other and interactions between citizens are, by their very nature, political?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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?

It is impossible for a people who live in a political environment to abstain from politics, because the abstention has political effects. So it is political, to the degree that abstention of JWs from various practices of society is seen as threatening to the "system". This doesn't mean you have to stop, but I think you should admit it.

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

The question of what should be, according to "Christian principles", the mechanisms of social relations involving authority or power that would result in, for example, rates of tax being set, levels and purposes of public expenditure, creation, change and repeal of laws, in the society and community where Christians live, is not an "imaginary scenario".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I advocate Gods Kingdom, if that is your perception of politicising them its your perception, i am not running for office, i am not asking for donations or soliciting for funds, I have not even asked that you refrain from voting nor hindered you in any way to do so, i have merely asserted that the early Christians practised abstention to demonstrate that there is a historical precedent.

Two items needing attention:

I think you have an inadequate view of what it means to participate politically.

You specified "true Christians" not "early Christians."

If you think being political is limited to those actions you mention here, I can see why we disagree.

Edit: But please understand I respect your personal decision WRT being political. I just think that that decision, when prevalent within a group, is paradoxically political.

Originally posted by FMF
Christians started holding political office once as it was safe and politically feasible to do so, which was not back when they were being persecuted for who they were. Why would the fact that there was a period of time when they did not hold political office and were unable to take responsibility for their communities and the wider society mean that should abstain from it when they are regular citizens like any other?

An unsubstantiated piece of nonsense. Early Christians who held political office
renounced their positions upon becoming Christians, why? clearly it was not as a
consequence of persecution and as the historian mention, it was primarily because of
sacred duties and certain principles which prohibited their involvement. Once gain we
are subject to your self certified and unsubstantiated opinions, not a single historian
mentions persecution as being a factor, no not a single one. You are clutching a
straws. My work is done here. Anyone who has anything other than rhetorical
arguments, useless and futile questions whose basis is purely speculative and which
leads to more useless and futile speculation, that is anyone with anything of substance,
anything historically factual please post it, if you know anything about it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An unsubstantiated piece of nonsense. Early Christians who held political office
renounced their positions upon becoming Christians, why? clearly it was not as a
consequence of persecution and as the historian mention, it was primarily because of
sacred duties and certain principles which prohibited their involvement. Once gain we
are subjec ...[text shortened]... ing of substance,
anything historically factual please post it, if you know anything about it.

Whatever work you think you have now done here, is political.

Originally posted by JS357
Two items needing attention:

I think you have an inadequate view of what it means to participate politically.

You specified "true Christians" not "early Christians."

If you think being political is limited to those actions you mention here, I can see why we disagree.

Edit: But please understand I respect your personal decision WRT being political. I just think that that decision, when prevalent within a group, is paradoxically political.

yes we have different perceptions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes we have different perceptions.

Paradoxically political perceptions. Or are they apolitical?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An unsubstantiated piece of nonsense. Early Christians who held political office
renounced their positions upon becoming Christians, why? clearly it was not as a
consequence of persecution and as the historian mention, it was primarily because of
sacred duties and certain principles which prohibited their involvement. Once gain we
are subjec ...[text shortened]... ing of substance,
anything historically factual please post it, if you know anything about it.

There is no public health, justice, education, infrastructure, resource management or environmental safeguards without politics. What is your moral blueprint for living in a world where you benefit directly from such politics?

Originally posted by JS357
Whatever work you think you have now done here, is political.

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, then who am i to correct you. I suspect that if a man was to climb a tall
tower, rest upon one leg and take a vow of silence for seven years you may also
construe that he was politicising also.

Originally posted by FMF
There is no public health, justice, education, infrastructure, resource management or environmental safeguards without politics. What is your moral blueprint for living in a world where you benefit directly from such politics?

sorry i don't do useless and futile speculation, try the science forum, they are into
plausibilities rather than truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i don't do useless and futile speculation, try the science forum, they are into plausibilities rather than truth.

The existence of contemporary political economies in which Christians live and interact, is real, and to mention this in the context of this topic is not "useless and futile speculation".

To try to dismiss reality in this way runs the risk of depicting Christianity - or at least your version of "true Christianity" - as a wholly parasitic entity, and to attempt to avoid discussion of this reality is an intensely political stance on your part.

What elements and realities of a contemporary political economy would you be willing to forgo in order to be "politically neutral"?

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.

Is he "doing work"? Your "work" seemed to be communicating something to your fellows about political involvement, to some end you have in mind. That's fine, I don't have problem with that, I am not saying you should be silent, I am just saying you are being political.

Was the tower man doing a work, communicating something to his fellows? Oh but you don't do useless and futile speculation.

Originally posted by JS357
Whatever work you think you have now done here, is political.

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 supposedly "wide ranging and impartial" public inquiry in the U.K. being primed to deliver the desired whitewash by the inclusion of all manner of criteria and terms of reference that guarantee the inquiry is not "wide ranging and impartial".

Here, in a discussion about "Christian neutrality", in which he has a pre-set notion he wishes to promote, robbie refuses to entertain discussion of what political "neutrality" is and what its political consequences are in the real world, i.e. to guarantee that the discussion is not "wide ranging and impartial" so as to deliver a whitewash on behalf of the pre-set notion. 😵

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]

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.