@Arinzeoreva@Oluwadaniel_0 1st century Christians most certainly did engage in politics, because politics is in every organization.
Perhaps you meant they didn't engage in democratic politics at a country-level? That's right, because they didn't live in countries that were democracies.
@EcciusMaximus Why do you think that makes it better?
Irenaeus let a philosophical theory he had override a basic biographical fact given in Luke.
Classic clever-silly behaviour, which should makes us hesitant about anything else he claims.
@Arinzeoreva@Oluwadaniel_0 Just wrong - Christians can and do have influence in all sorts of domains, as Jesus' hands and feet. Politics is just one of those.
Becoming civically engaged does not mean people killing you. But if it came to that, alright, Christians should be willing to risk their lives to do what's right.
Jesus is *King* of a *polity* (which you rightly say has your primary allegiance). Of course he wields immense political power.
@Arinzeoreva@Oluwadaniel_0 Christians have a long history of dealing with people willing to kill them. I have no idea why you think this is a good argument.
@Sam_Tunji@Oluwadaniel_0 1st century Judea and Galilee were not democracies. I have no idea why you are asking this question.
Jesus defeated the 'ruler of this world'.
@man_of_options I'm not privy to decisions on whether to, say, allow someone to remain as a member if they divorce for a reason other than adultery. But to the extent churches are acting as authentically Christian, they would not tolerate this.
@ThyRamMan@JoshuaBarzon Ya, very strong effect with founders. Jefferson was also a Unitarian. Paine also. Franklin was at least sympathetic. Madison is debated.
@AlexVvoni@JoshuaBarzon Ya, 4 'heretics' became President.
Trinitarian Protestantism has become less tolerant, perhaps as an institutional memory from having to fight off Unitarianism in the 1700-1800s, combined with the ongoing success of JWism which is can more easily call a 'cult'.