voting christans

Originally posted by JS357
It does not bother me that you don't vote.

I just think if Jesus had been politically neutral, he would not have attracted the attention of the Jewish hierarchy. He didn't vote because nobody voted.

Well it bothers me. Not voting is unamerican! 😠

It's just a good thing he is not American. 😵

Originally posted by divegeester
Are JW's instructed/taught by the leadership to be "politically neutral"?

Galveston would you like to clarify this point?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thank you, once again the assertion that we are unable to exercise our consciences
because of alleged dictates is thoroughly and soundly refuted, I hope the forum will
remember this. We are politically neutral because Christ was politically neutral.

But - unlike Christ - you can serve the state (and the crown in the case of the U.K.), carry out its policies and enforce its laws with regard to fellow citizens, regardless of their religious denomination, right?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are JW's instructed/taught by the leadership to be "politically neutral"?

you read the quote, read it again if you are having trouble. Here it is again if you are
having trouble understanding it,

Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, November 1, 1999, p. 28,"As to whether
they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah's
Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an
understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State."

The Bible teaches that Christ was politically neutral, does it not?

Originally posted by FMF
But - unlike Christ - you can serve the state (and the crown in the case of the U.K.), carry out its policies and enforce its laws with regard to fellow citizens, regardless of their religious denomination, right?

a Christian would need to take into consideration in what capacity he is serving the
state and whether it complies with the dictates of his conscience, he could not serve
with good conscience in the military, nor in a munitions factory by way of example.
Again it is futile to draw any hard and fast rules, each Christian must be guided by his
conscience in accordance with his understanding. Unlike Christ we also don't walk on
water, just saying.

Originally posted by whodey
What about in places like Australia where voting is compulsary?

For example, most Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians believe that they should
not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their
freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah's
Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to
go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a Christian would need to take into consideration in what capacity he is serving the
state and whether it complies with the dictates of his conscience, he could not serve
with good conscience in the military, nor in a munitions factory by way of example.
again it is futile to draw any hard and fast rules, each Christian must be guided by his
conscience in accordance with his understanding.

what about paying taxes that fund the military, im not always happy about it, how do you chaps get around that conflict.

if you worked for a rubber molding factory and the factory won a contract to provide rubber parts for miltary gun grips, would you have to resign or can you ask to work in a part of the factory that makes something else?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what about paying taxes that fund the military, im not always happy about it, how do you chaps get around that conflict.

if you worked for a rubber molding factory and the factory won a contract to provide rubber parts for miltary gun grips, would you have to resign or can you ask to work in a part of the factory that makes something else?

its rather simple, the question was asked in the first century, Romans chapter 13,
where the Christians in Rome were having a crisis of conscience because they were
paying taxes to Caesar, who was essentially licentious and immoral, Paul counselled the
Christians to pay the taxes on account of their own consciences, for it was required by
the government, what the government seeks to do with those taxes is their affair and
as they stand in a position relative to God, shall be accountable.

The Christian would need to decide whether producing rubber tips violated his
conscience. that is the beauty of principles, they re so much more extensive and
applicable than laws and is why Christianity is in my opinion, superior to Islam and
Judaism, for they make little room for the exercising of conscience, but are guided
primarily by laws. In Christianity, the individual matters.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a Christian would need to take into consideration in what capacity he is serving the
state and whether it complies with the dictates of his conscience, he could not serve
with good conscience in the military, nor in a munitions factory by way of example.
Again it is futile to draw any hard and fast rules, each Christian must be guided by his ...[text shortened]... in accordance with his understanding. Unlike Christ we also don't walk on
water, just saying.

Unlike Christ we also don't walk on water, just saying.

That's a shame, i'd come to a Kingdom Hall just to watch that.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Unlike Christ we also don't walk on water, just saying.

That's a shame, i'd come to a Kingdom Hall just to watch that.[/b]

LOL, gimmicks!

Originally posted by FMF
Voting for who you want to represent you - or choosing not to vote - is surely a matter of personal conscience, exercised by free moral agents; it surely cannot be 'not permitted'.

when the consequences for exercising free will are undesirable, we do in fact speak of "not permitted"

Originally posted by JS357
It does not bother me that you don't vote.

I just think if Jesus had been politically neutral, he would not have attracted the attention of the Jewish hierarchy. He didn't vote because nobody voted.

well it depends how you define politically neutral. He of course attracted attention
because he was saying that he was a King, which to the Romans was seditious. The
question of why he attracted the attention of the Jewish hierarchy is also really
interesting one, but mainly doctrinal, for he was to them, claiming an authority that
only God could claim, like the forgiveness of sins.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its rather simple, the question was asked in the first century, Romans chapter 13,
where the Christians in Rome were having a crisis of conscience because they were
paying taxes to Caesar, who was essentially licentious and immoral, Paul counselled the
Christians to pay the taxes on account of their own consciences, for it was required by
the ...[text shortened]... ing of conscience, but are guided
primarily by laws. In Christianity, the individual matters.

fair enough, although im slightly confused as to why somethings are left to the individuals conscience (principles) and other things like your blood laws and abortion are not left to the individuals principles?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you read the quote, read it again if you are having trouble. Here it is again if you are
having trouble understanding it,

Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, November 1, 1999, p. 28,"As to whether
they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah's
Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained co ...[text shortened]... God and to the State."

The Bible teaches that Christ was politically neutral, does it not?

Being taught to be "politically neutral" equates to being taught to not vote doesn't it; or do you think a JW who votes for one party is being in some way neutral?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well it depends how you define politically neutral. He of course attracted attention
because he was saying that he was a King, which to the Romans was seditious. The
question of why he attracted the attention of the Jewish hierarchy is also really
interesting one, but mainly doctrinal, for he was to them, claiming an authority that
only God could claim, like the forgiveness of sins.

How can you claim that Jesus was politically neutral when he declared/allowed himself to be declared King of the Jews in a totalitarian state?