Christians should not be involved in politics.

In this round I will be only providing my rebuttal to Con’s initial argument. *all verses used are NIV renditions**superscripted numbers are in referenced to sources at end of rebuttal*Con’s Initial Argument: First ParagraphCon has said that “Christian doctrine” does not in any way demand its followers to refrain from politics. I would ask Con to clarify, but I cannot. He can only mean one of two things:1) The Bible and teachings of Christ in no way demand its followers to refrain from politics.2) Man made church doctrines (after the 1st century) in no way demand its followers to refrain from politicsThe first statement is simply incorrect, as I have shown. However, the second statement is correct. So I will go with the assumption that Con is referring to second statement when he talks about “Christian doctrine”. As a Christian myself, I prefer to go off of what the Bible and Jesus teach, not what fallible men have come up with. Con seems to be taking the approach of saying that it would be unpractical to withdraw all Christians from politics at this point. I agree. I am not trying to argue that all Christian politicians and leaders should be pulled out of the political scene, but rather that it is not scriptural for them to involved with it. Con has said that my argument has no religious or social grounds. However, my initial argument clearly shows that Jesus refused to be apart of politics and that he encouraged his disciples to not be apart of them as well. Also, I showed it would be impossible for us Christians to be loyal to an earthly kingdom when we have to be fully loyal to God’s Kingdom. In order for us to preach the good news of the coming Kingdom of God, we have to be able to break down the political barriers established in this world by earthly kingdoms. It is not only me that recognizes this, but also the early Christians were aware of everything I have said.Con states that any massive religious movement desires/likes power. I have to disagree. An example of a massive religious movement that does not strive for worldly power is the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are roughly eight million of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 239 countries. Out of those roughly eight million, none of them are affiliated with any political movement or hold a political office. They are loyal to God’s Kingdom and His Kingdom only, just like the early Christians. Con brings up the point of Christian interpretation. While it is true that many Biblical topics can be interpreted in different ways, I have shown it to be clear through the activities of the early Christians that this was once a straightforward concept and teaching. He goes on to give the example of Leviticus 11:12 to support his claim that there are different Christian interpretations. The verse reads:“Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.” The problem with this example is that it actually does not support his claim of differing Christian interpretations. While there are differing interpretations on some subjects, as I have stated, this is not one of them. Every Christian agrees that this law, along with many others, has been fulfilled by Jesus. Christians are no longer bound to the laws of the Old Testament. Consider this concept in light of these verses:Romans 10:4: “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”Galatians 3:23: “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”Ephesians 2:15: “by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,”Essentially, Con’s whole argument comparing Leviticus 11:12 to this topic is useless. I also believe that it shows Con’s lack of knowledge on the scriptures and Biblical thought, which are two primary sources for arguing on this topic.Con goes on to say that the interpretation of one person, unless the pope, is meaningless. I have to disagree. Men have greatly changed the shape of Christianity over the years. Consider all the Christian revivals and movements that have happened throughout history. One that really comes to mind is Martin Luther. So this claim that one person’s interpretation is meaningless has no foundation of support or evidence. 1I would like to briefly address the other misinformed statement in his argument, which is that in “scientific tests” outliers are disregarded. This is simply not true. If it is true, then I encourage Con to add a source supporting this claim. 2Con’s Initial Argument: Second ParagraphCon has claimed that the validity of the Bible is questionable. Not necessarily because of the information in it, but because of the years of copying. I am here to set the record straight that the validity of the modern Bible is not at all questionable. Almost all scholars agree that the modern Bible in relation to the early manuscripts is accurate and valid. Think of it like this, we have 105% of the Bible. Nothing is missing, but we have a little extra. That is why you will see that some Bibles omit particular verses that are not found in the earliest and most accurate manuscripts. Let’s see what the Institute for Religious Research has said about the Old Testament: “In 1948, some Old Testament manuscripts (along with some non-biblical writings) were found in caves near the Dead Sea which dated as early as 250 B.C.E., about a thousand years before the Masoretic text. These are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Instead of being anywhere from 1000-3000 years from the original, these are as close as a few hundred. In the case of one of these scrolls – a copy of the book of Isaiah – the only difference between its text and the Masoretic text, was three words, and these only differed in spelling! Though over 1000 years separate these two texts, there are only three spelling changes! This shows the care with which the Masoretes and other scribes had worked.” 3Despite my scriptural and scholarly presentation for my argument, Con does not feel convinced. He stated that just because Jesus and his disciples were politically neutral, that does not mean that all Christians should be. I disagree. Jesus and the disciples are pretty much the poster children of Christianity. We, as Christians, are supposed to imitate Jesus. (1 Peter 2:21) So if Jesus was not involved in politics and he encouraged his disciples to do the same, then we as Christians are supposed to follow that example. As I showed in my initial argument, the early Christians also recognized this. When the Bible states that we are not a part of this world, it is clear to me that we are not a part of this world. That means that we should not support, promote, or be involved with earthly/worldly kingdoms beyond necessity. If Con has a better or more accurate interpretation, then I would encourage him to put it in his rebuttal. When Jesus is discussing with the Pharisees and Herodians about paying imperial taxes, it is not just about Jesus refusing the currency. It is about Jesus showing that what is earthly/worldly belongs here on earth. What is apart of God’s Kingdom belongs to God. This shows the clear line drawn between what is God’s and what is man’s. Christians are to be loyal to God’s Kingdom and His Kingdom only. Con goes on to argue that remaining neutral on political issues does not inherently mean that all Christians should not be involved in politics. I have to disagree. To say that Christians can both be neutral on political issues and be involved in politics is simply being intellectually dishonest. Let’s define what neutral means:neutral - not helping or supporting either side in a conflict If someone is neutral on an issue, or impartial, then they cannot really be active in it. The next argument is that verses arguing “government authorities not being legitimate because only God has authority” would not be written today. He goes on to say that those verses were only relevant to the people during the time of Jesus. I have to disagree once more. Let’s consider this argument in light of Hebrew 4:12: “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”If the word of God is truly alive and active, that means that it can never be outdated or irrelevant like Con has suggested. Therefore, these verses should still be applied today. Con’s Initial Argument: Third ParagraphThe goal of missionaries is to convert as many people as they can to Christianity, not to convert all people to Christianity. There will never be a time under Satan’s rule where every person will be a Christian. (Matthew 7:14) Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://pareonline.net...[3] http://irr.org...